Biggio
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
From Baseball Prospectus:
Back to Article | Baseball Prospectus Home
June 26, 2007
Prospectus Today
The Meaning of the Milestone
by Joe Sheehan
Last night, the Astros started Chris Burke at second base, batting him sixth and using Mark Loretta as their leadoff man in their 6-1 loss to the Brewers. It is likely that Burke or Loretta will play second base in Wednesday’s game as well. Phil Garner hasn’t had a sudden change of heart about the best alignment of his available talent; no, he’s sitting Craig Biggio in two of these three games to prevent Biggio from notching his 3,000th career hit on the road.
Set aside for the moment the issue of whether the Astros are better with Burke at second base and Loretta batting leadoff, which is certainly the case. That was also the case on Opening Day, but Garner has pencilled Biggio’s name into the lineup 62 times, including 59 times in the leadoff spot. He decided at the beginning of the season that Biggio was his starting second baseman, and no amount of out-making was going to change that. Biggio's .279 OBP wasn’t the reason he was on the bench last night.
Consider the context as well. The Astros, in no small part because of that .279 OBP from their leadoff hitter, were 32-43 heading into last night's game, 11 games behind the Brewers. I don't think the Astros are serious contenders any more than the next guy does, but if they were going to make a push, it would certainly help to go into Miller Park and win three games. Doing so would seem to require playing your starters. Garner elected to not do so last night. Consider that the Astros were dead and buried in both 2004 and 2005 before making runs to the NLCS and World Series, respectively. If any team can take itself seriously from 11 games out with nearly 90 to play, it’s these Astros.
Pull that all together for a second. Astros manager Phil Garner went into a do-or-die series with a division leader and benched his starting second baseman not for any reason related to merit, but so that an individual achievement can be celebrated in a certain manner. He put a statistic, a person and a show ahead of the team’s goals. He and the Astros have been doing this all year of course just by playing Biggio, but the naked manipulation of playing time in what should be a key series is galling.
Individual records in any form of competition only matter in that they are achieved in the pursuit of the goal of winning. We keep individual statistics, but even the most hardcore stathead will explain that the statistics themselves are only meaningful because they serve to measure an individual’s contribution to winning. We rate players by the runs they produce and save, because those runs are the building blocks of wins, and wins matter. That a player might accumulate a significant number of hits, doubles, walks, stolen bases is something to be noted, and even perhaps celebrated, but only if that accumulation comes in the natural course of events. The pursuit of a championship is primary; there should be no pursuit of numbers.
This is what was so wrong about Pete Rose’s chase of Ty Cobb’s all-time record for hits in a career. Rose’s performance had been so bad from 1982 through the middle of 1984 that he no longer was worthy of a roster spot. He could not contribute to the winning of a championship. (His 1983 was disgustingly bad--.245/.316/.286 as a mediocre defensive first baseman--and the Phillies' pennant came in spite of him.) The Reds signed him because the Reds weren’t much about winning championships at that point, and wanted the sideshow. Rose wasn’t quite as bad with the Reds--his .395 OBP helped them finish second in 1985, even paired with a .319 SLG--but it really didn’t matter. The decision to sign a just-released 43-year-old first baseman who hadn't homered since 1982 was indefensible as a baseball decision, and moreso for a team whose system was about to cough up a lineup’s worth of hitters.
Rose would have been considered a Hall of Famer and a great player even if he’d ended his career with 4,062 hits. His pursuit of a number, and the Reds’ enabling of that pursuit, actually detracted from his setting of the mark.
Biggio’s advance to his 3000th hit is exactly the same situation. Biggio shouldn’t be a regular any longer, and since he can’t really play anywhere but second base, he’s got a minimal case for even having a roster spot. If he had started the season with 2,763 hits, or 3,112, he wouldn’t be playing at all. The only reason he’s been allowed to play is because he was close to a three-zero number in a high-visibility category.
This act, this glorifying of a statistic, a number, is supposed to be the thing that we do, that statheads do, that takes away from the beauty and spirit of the game. But I don’t know a single stathead, not one, who would allow a player who so clearly doesn’t deserve to play any longer into the lineup just because of a number. Numbers only matter when they’re part of the pursuit of a championship. Separated from that, they’re a sideshow, and they have little meaning.
What number of hits Craig Biggio finishes his career with has absolutely nothing to do with his value as a player, the greatness he showed at his peak, or his qualifications for the Hall of Fame. Biggio contributed mightily to good teams, and he had a long career during which he displayed a broad range of skills. We can measure those things, we can evaluate and analyze his performance, and our methods for doing so have meaning because the context in which we put them is helping a team win baseball games.
Biggio’s last few hits have no such relevance. They are just hits garnered so that Craig Biggio can get hits. That was clear at the start of the season, but benching him for two of three games in a June series against the division leaders is the cherry on top. Craig Biggio isn’t a baseball player now. He’s a stat-generating robot.
There’s nothing to be done of course. I wouldn’t recommend that Bud Selig get involved--like he would, given his own relentless attacks on the integrity of the championship season--or suggest that Brewers fans get crazy over the fact that they’re being denied a shot at seeing history.
It is interesting that this is happening in Milwaukee. In 1998, fans there complained when Tony La Russa benched Mark McGwire for a game in September, while McGwire was extending his record for home runs in a season. The difference, however, was that in ’98, McGwire not playing in one of the three games of that series was consistent with how Tony La Russa had managed him throughout the year, resting him on occasion to keep him fresh. This isn’t that. This is a lineup decision made to affect the statistics, and specifically to deny the Milwaukee fans a chance to see history, such as it is. They should feel cheated.
Craig Biggio is no less a man, no less a great baseball player, no less a Hall of Famer for his participation in this charade. The number, though, just doesn’t mean very much. Reaching a statistical milestone is meaningless when the milestone becomes the goal. Anybody can play long enough to make a particular odometer turn over. It’s deserving to do so that makes it a true achievement.
Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact Joe by clicking here or click here to see Joe's other articles.
Baseball Prospectus Home | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Copyright © 1996-2007 Prospectus Entertainment Ventures, LLC.
Back to Article | Baseball Prospectus Home
June 26, 2007
Prospectus Today
The Meaning of the Milestone
by Joe Sheehan
Last night, the Astros started Chris Burke at second base, batting him sixth and using Mark Loretta as their leadoff man in their 6-1 loss to the Brewers. It is likely that Burke or Loretta will play second base in Wednesday’s game as well. Phil Garner hasn’t had a sudden change of heart about the best alignment of his available talent; no, he’s sitting Craig Biggio in two of these three games to prevent Biggio from notching his 3,000th career hit on the road.
Set aside for the moment the issue of whether the Astros are better with Burke at second base and Loretta batting leadoff, which is certainly the case. That was also the case on Opening Day, but Garner has pencilled Biggio’s name into the lineup 62 times, including 59 times in the leadoff spot. He decided at the beginning of the season that Biggio was his starting second baseman, and no amount of out-making was going to change that. Biggio's .279 OBP wasn’t the reason he was on the bench last night.
Consider the context as well. The Astros, in no small part because of that .279 OBP from their leadoff hitter, were 32-43 heading into last night's game, 11 games behind the Brewers. I don't think the Astros are serious contenders any more than the next guy does, but if they were going to make a push, it would certainly help to go into Miller Park and win three games. Doing so would seem to require playing your starters. Garner elected to not do so last night. Consider that the Astros were dead and buried in both 2004 and 2005 before making runs to the NLCS and World Series, respectively. If any team can take itself seriously from 11 games out with nearly 90 to play, it’s these Astros.
Pull that all together for a second. Astros manager Phil Garner went into a do-or-die series with a division leader and benched his starting second baseman not for any reason related to merit, but so that an individual achievement can be celebrated in a certain manner. He put a statistic, a person and a show ahead of the team’s goals. He and the Astros have been doing this all year of course just by playing Biggio, but the naked manipulation of playing time in what should be a key series is galling.
Individual records in any form of competition only matter in that they are achieved in the pursuit of the goal of winning. We keep individual statistics, but even the most hardcore stathead will explain that the statistics themselves are only meaningful because they serve to measure an individual’s contribution to winning. We rate players by the runs they produce and save, because those runs are the building blocks of wins, and wins matter. That a player might accumulate a significant number of hits, doubles, walks, stolen bases is something to be noted, and even perhaps celebrated, but only if that accumulation comes in the natural course of events. The pursuit of a championship is primary; there should be no pursuit of numbers.
This is what was so wrong about Pete Rose’s chase of Ty Cobb’s all-time record for hits in a career. Rose’s performance had been so bad from 1982 through the middle of 1984 that he no longer was worthy of a roster spot. He could not contribute to the winning of a championship. (His 1983 was disgustingly bad--.245/.316/.286 as a mediocre defensive first baseman--and the Phillies' pennant came in spite of him.) The Reds signed him because the Reds weren’t much about winning championships at that point, and wanted the sideshow. Rose wasn’t quite as bad with the Reds--his .395 OBP helped them finish second in 1985, even paired with a .319 SLG--but it really didn’t matter. The decision to sign a just-released 43-year-old first baseman who hadn't homered since 1982 was indefensible as a baseball decision, and moreso for a team whose system was about to cough up a lineup’s worth of hitters.
Rose would have been considered a Hall of Famer and a great player even if he’d ended his career with 4,062 hits. His pursuit of a number, and the Reds’ enabling of that pursuit, actually detracted from his setting of the mark.
Biggio’s advance to his 3000th hit is exactly the same situation. Biggio shouldn’t be a regular any longer, and since he can’t really play anywhere but second base, he’s got a minimal case for even having a roster spot. If he had started the season with 2,763 hits, or 3,112, he wouldn’t be playing at all. The only reason he’s been allowed to play is because he was close to a three-zero number in a high-visibility category.
This act, this glorifying of a statistic, a number, is supposed to be the thing that we do, that statheads do, that takes away from the beauty and spirit of the game. But I don’t know a single stathead, not one, who would allow a player who so clearly doesn’t deserve to play any longer into the lineup just because of a number. Numbers only matter when they’re part of the pursuit of a championship. Separated from that, they’re a sideshow, and they have little meaning.
What number of hits Craig Biggio finishes his career with has absolutely nothing to do with his value as a player, the greatness he showed at his peak, or his qualifications for the Hall of Fame. Biggio contributed mightily to good teams, and he had a long career during which he displayed a broad range of skills. We can measure those things, we can evaluate and analyze his performance, and our methods for doing so have meaning because the context in which we put them is helping a team win baseball games.
Biggio’s last few hits have no such relevance. They are just hits garnered so that Craig Biggio can get hits. That was clear at the start of the season, but benching him for two of three games in a June series against the division leaders is the cherry on top. Craig Biggio isn’t a baseball player now. He’s a stat-generating robot.
There’s nothing to be done of course. I wouldn’t recommend that Bud Selig get involved--like he would, given his own relentless attacks on the integrity of the championship season--or suggest that Brewers fans get crazy over the fact that they’re being denied a shot at seeing history.
It is interesting that this is happening in Milwaukee. In 1998, fans there complained when Tony La Russa benched Mark McGwire for a game in September, while McGwire was extending his record for home runs in a season. The difference, however, was that in ’98, McGwire not playing in one of the three games of that series was consistent with how Tony La Russa had managed him throughout the year, resting him on occasion to keep him fresh. This isn’t that. This is a lineup decision made to affect the statistics, and specifically to deny the Milwaukee fans a chance to see history, such as it is. They should feel cheated.
Craig Biggio is no less a man, no less a great baseball player, no less a Hall of Famer for his participation in this charade. The number, though, just doesn’t mean very much. Reaching a statistical milestone is meaningless when the milestone becomes the goal. Anybody can play long enough to make a particular odometer turn over. It’s deserving to do so that makes it a true achievement.
Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact Joe by clicking here or click here to see Joe's other articles.
Baseball Prospectus Home | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Copyright © 1996-2007 Prospectus Entertainment Ventures, LLC.
0
Comments
Biggio will get his hits, end his career in Houston and enter the Hall of Fame.
Biggio is the man, first ballot HOFer, a class act, and nothing anyone says can take away his career accomplishments.
<< <i>Did you even read the article stown? He doesn't talk about Biggio at all, but the choices Garner has made in using him. >>
Huh?!?!
Did YOU even read the article? Obviously not.
Have a nice day
And that's not to mention the riot that benching Biggio would have caused among Houston's fans who want him to get his 3,000th hit - at home - at least as much as they'd rather be 11 games out instead of 13. He acknowledges in one breath that Biggio's 3,000th hit qualifies as "making history", but in the next breath he calls it "meaningless". This is an article in search of a controversy where no controversy exists.
And if the fans of MIL feel as if they were cheated by not seeing Craig, uh.... Look at the standings... Think they should purchase a seat for other reasons.
Dope
<< <i>At this point the Astros have nothing else going for them besides Biggios 3000 hits lol. Let him get it at home and he can retire after this year. >>
Wrong. 2 words: Hunter Pence.
<< <i>
<< <i>At this point the Astros have nothing else going for them besides Biggios 3000 hits lol. Let him get it at home and he can retire after this year. >>
Wrong. 2 words: Hunter Pence. >>
I : heart : Hunter
Go Biggio Go the Hall is waiting for you. Get 3000 in Houston!
and when it come to the game being on the line I want a experienced veteran in there then some rookie.
PS:Maddux, Smoltz & Glavine should retire today even though all 3 won last night. (maybe the Reds could pick up these 3 over the hill pitchers) well I can always dream Go Reds
<< <i>You could always argue, that Aaron stayed way to long to get 715
You could say that if you wanted to be revealed as a moron. The year before he broke the record Aaron hit 40 HRs with an OPS of 1.045. I believe he earned his playing time in 74.
BTW-I am a big fan of Biggio, I just think it is time for him to go. At the very least his playing time should be reduced.
<< <i>At the very least his playing time should be reduced. >>
It has been.. More than it ever has been before, subject to injuries.
However, when you only get insight from Mr. Sheehan and ESPN, I can understand why you would think he's an every day player.
Edited to note:
Can you say irony?
Posting an article bashing us for sitting him against MIL but then complain that his playing time should be reduced.
<< <i>
<< <i>At the very least his playing time should be reduced. >>
It has been.. More than it ever has been before, subject to injuries.
However, when you only get insight from Mr. Sheehan and ESPN, I can understand why you would think he's an every day player.
I never said he was an every day player, I said his playing time should be reduced. If he starts two games a week, that is two too many. BTW, the point of the article, as several people have noted, is that the Astros are keeping him on the team so that he can reach an artificial number; the team would be better if he never started another game.
<< <i>
<< <i>You could always argue, that Aaron stayed way to long to get 715
You could say that if you wanted to be revealed as a moron. The year before he broke the record Aaron hit 40 HRs with an OPS of 1.045. I believe he earned his playing time in 74.
BTW-I am a big fan of Biggio, I just think it is time for him to go. At the very least his playing time should be reduced. >>
1973 the year that 3 Braves hit 40 or more home runs Davey Johnson 43 Darrel Evans 41 and Hank Aaron 40 (can we say corked or launching pad). pitching gets better? 1974 Davey Johnson 15 Darrel Evans 25 and Hank Aaron 20. 1975 Davey Johnson 0 Darrel Evans 22 and Hank Aaron 12. I believe they all earned their shot. PS: I just don't like Hank Aaron or the Braves!!!
The key word is (could) and on that subject let's argue if the sun will come up tomorrow.
Go Mets & Phillies crush the braves
I can think of many worse players to have at 2B than Biggio. Just because he isn't the best at his position like he has been for years doesn't mean he's completely worthless.
Since Biggio is underperforming by standards he has all ready set, and you say that two games a week is two too many for him to be in, I'll ask this;
How many games should Andruw "Mendoza" Jones be playing per week?
<< <i>How many games should Andruw "Mendoza" Jones be playing per week? >>
Yeah! What he said
<< <i>
<< <i>How many games should Andruw "Mendoza" Jones be playing per week? >>
Yeah! What he said
LOL! Andruw is having a terrible year without question. Biggio is over forty, was terrible last year, and is worse this year. There are 2nd basemen in AAA who are better than Biggio. His OPS is 73% of the league average, and his range factor is 10% below the league average.
Andruw is 30; last year his OPS was right at .900 with 42 homers. This year his BA is terrible, but his OPS (83% league average) is better than Biggio's. His range factor is 20% above the league average. Bobby Cox does not need to apologize for playing him.
BTW-you are correct that Biggio is not the worst 2nd basemen in the league. Prospectus ranks him 37th of 41 (min 100 plate appearances).
<< <i>Does anyone think for a second that if Biggio had gotten 3000 hits last year that he either (a) would have retired or (b) not be playing at all for the Astros this year? >>
Has anyone claimed otherwise?
No.
In fact, he most likely will retire at the end of this season.
What's comical is the hate spewed on the keyboard by some of the posters here.
The author talks out of the both sides of his mouth and as dallas noted, trying to make a mountain of a mole hill. Personally, I don't give a rat's rear what he says or thinks.. Biggio will rightfully get his 3,000th hit and the home fans get to witness this historic accomplishment.
Hopefully, I'll be there to shower Craig with the home town appreciation he truly deserves as he takes another step into the HOF.
And now, it's time to head out to the game
That is all.
<< <i>heh people trying to defend Biggio by attacking Andruw Jones? Comical. When that happens it's obvious your arguement is lost. Does anyone think for a second that if Biggio had gotten 3000 hits last year that he either (a) would have retired or (b) not be playing at all for the Astros this year? >>
OK, now I know for certain stitzen is Axtell. Kudos to the others who picked up on this after her first few posts - I should not have doubted you. There should be a prize (like man-boob implants or a mini-Cooper) for the first to spot her next alt.
Since you're here, though, have you found those engineers who agree with you that Bush blew up the Twin Towers? For an Erudite Sorcerer Tradeskiller Extraordinaire it sure is taking you a long time. The mall must be slow this time of year, so now's your chance.
Master Dallas A'ctuary
Exemplar Fletching Wizard
<< <i>heh people trying to defend Biggio by attacking Andruw Jones? Comical. When that happens it's obvious your arguement is lost. Does anyone think for a second that if Biggio had gotten 3000 hits last year that he either (a) would have retired or (b) not be playing at all for the Astros this year? >>
I wasn't attacking Andruw Jones. I was merely providing an example that could parallel markj's argument.
By his argument, Jones should never get to play because he's not playing good this year. Do you mean to tell me that there isn't a single player in the Braves organization that could go out and do better than him right now? I'd bet there is. But Jones has built a reputation that is good enough to garner him the opportunity to work through his struggles. As has Biggio.
Biggio has been a class act throughout his career, and if the Astros had any chance of competing this year, I might feel differently about him going out there every day. As it is, Biggio's not holding anybody up. There's no one waiting in the wings to take over, and they aren't going to the playoffs, so what's the harm?
Biggio getting his 3,000th hit, I mean...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If a team is not in contention I see no problem with a team hoping for a guy to get a milestone at home. >>
That's right. There are a handful of MLB teams that haven't won in decades and aren't likely to win for several more. It's not always about winning with these teams. The most important thing is that they pack the stadium full and make money. If they can't make bank on a world series or a pennant, they can certainly sign aging sluggers and capitalize on milestones. In fact, they'd be STUPID not to. If I owned the D-rays or some other loser team with a miniscule payroll, I'd try to win games of course--but when you're playing .350 baseball at the halfway point, it's obvious focus needs to shift to keep the fans satisfied and keep money pouring in. So why not sign a Biggio, or a Bonds, or Sosa, or Ripken? It's a no-brainer.
And speaking of Biggio's stats, he's not that worse off now than he was 5 years ago. He's hitting .250 and his career average is barely 30 points higher than that, with many years right around where he is now. He's on pace to score 95 runs--not bad for an aging 2nd baseman with such a low OBP. The 45 doubles he's on pace to hit this season isn't so bad, either.
I don't understand the skepticism.
I've been hearing it for two or three years now, this skepticism about Craig Biggio's chance of someday being elected to the Hall of Fame, and I don't understand it.
Of course, now that he's finally -- painfully, even -- picked up his 3,000th hit, some of the skeptics will fade away.
But why 3,000?
I mean, really. Why 3,000 hits rather 2,867? After all, every Hall-eligible player with more than 2,866 hits -- all 34 of them -- has been elected. Is 2,867 a magic number?
Well, no. I chose that number because Harold Baines finished his career with 2,866 hits, and last winter he picked up only 29 votes (out of 545 possible). If there's one thing we know about magic numbers, it's that 2,866 is not one of them.
With all due respect, the worst player among those with 3,000 hits is Lou Brock, who finished with 3,023. Brock's a Hall of Famer. But of course Brock had something else going for him: the single-season and career records for stolen bases (of course, both are now held by Rickey Henderson). Brock's not remembered for all those hits; he's remembered for breaking Ty Cobb's records.
So when somebody says 3,000 hits -- or 500 home runs, or 300 wins -- is a "magic number," all that really means is every player with that number is in the Hall of Fame (extenuating circumstances notwithstanding). But that term ignores the possibility, the likelihood that the player did some other things, too.
Yes, Rod Carew finished with 3,053 hits. He also won seven batting titles and an MVP Award. Yes, Henderson finished with 3,055 hits. He also scored more runs than anybody, ever. Yes, Robin Yount finished with 3,142 hits. He also was MVP twice, and was a Gold Glove shortstop. Yes, Roberto Clemente finished (tragically) with 3,000 hits. He also was regarded as the greatest defensive right fielder anybody'd ever seen.
So the question really isn't whether 3,000 hits will be enough to get Craig Biggio into the Hall of Fame. The question is whether he did enough other things to get into the Hall of Fame.
First, though, can we agree that if a player ranks among the top 10 at his position, he belongs in the Hall of Fame? Right now, there are 17 players in the Hall of Fame based largely on their time as major league second basemen. It seems to me that if you're better than roughly half of them, then by definition -- and the Hall is self-defining -- you belong with them.
Here are some of Biggio's key career statistics, followed by all the second basemen who are ahead of him in the category:
2,781 games: Eddie Collins (2,826)
3,000 hits: Eddie Collins (3,312), Nap Lajoie (3,242)
1,820 runs: Eddie Collins (1,821)
286 home runs: Jeff Kent (355), Rogers Hornsby (301)
Collins, Lajoie and Hornsby all played before World War II, and were the first three second basemen elected to the Hall of Fame. Among post-war second baseman, Biggio is No. 1 in everything here except home runs. No second baseman pre-war, war, post-war -- hit more doubles than Biggio, who recently took the No. 1 spot from Lajoie.
Biggio ranks ninth among second basemen in RBIs; with the exception of Kent, everybody with more is in the Hall of Fame. Biggio ranks sixth among second basemen in runs created; everybody with more is in the Hall of Fame. In runs created above average -- which accounts for different environments in different eras -- Biggio again ranks sixth, and again everybody ahead of him is in the Hall of Fame. Among all the second basemen who have played the game, only Collins and Joe Morgan reached base more times.
I will argue, today and probably for many years, that Biggio is not only one of the 10 greatest second basemen in major league history, but one of the five or six greatest.
I'm reasonably confident in saying that Biggio was not as great as Morgan or Hornsby or Collins. He might not have been as great as Lajoie, and he was not, during his peak years, as great as Jackie Robinson during Robinson's peak years. Perhaps we might even find a place for the terribly underrated Roberto Alomar in this conversation.
I would not, on the other hand, be at all confident in saying that anybody else was greater than Biggio. I challenge anybody reading this to find another second baseman, somebody not mentioned in the paragraph just above this one, with a claim to being greater than Biggio. Frankly, I don't think you can do it. And if that's not a Hall of Famer, I'm a dump truck.
<< <i>Here is Neyer's opininion on Biggio, which I happen to agree with. >>
In all seriousness, it requires either gross ignorance of what Craig Biggio has acomplished or gross ignorance of baseball itself to disagree with Neyer.
The other (not mentioned by Neyer as possibly better then Biggio) HOF second basemen are Rod Carew, Bobby Doerr, Johnny Evers, Nellie Fox, Frankie Frisch, Charlie Gehringer, Billy Herman, Tony Lazzeri, Bill Mazeroski, Bid McPhee, Ryne Sandberg and Red Schoendienst.
I'll disagree with you if you think Carew or Gehringer was better than Biggio, but I'll call you a fool if you think anyone else on that list was.
The only problem is that the exact same analysis could be done at third base on behalf of Ron Santo - there are only five or six third basemen that reasonably intelligent people could consider better than Santo and yet Santo has been shut out. The HOF voters include scores of less than reasonably intelligent people, and there is really no way for the rest of us to predict what they will do.
Situational Batter Runs + Situational Stolen base runs
Carew 455 + 15
Biggio 355 + 23
Baseball Prospectus WARP1(Wins above Replacement Player)
Carew 122
Biggio 116
Defensively at 2B, I don't see either one as anything special, and they are very similar....Biggio probably a little better.
Taking into account that an even greater era adjustment needs to be made(for the severe thin talent of now), then the gap widens.
Some may downgrade Carew more because he was moved to first base, but that is more a reflection on the decisions of his manager/GM than on how good a player he was. He wasn't the best 2B, but he didn't kill them there either, and he still could have played there.
There is no comparison between them two offesnively. Carew is much better. Defensively is a slight edge to Biggio. Biggio makes up all his ground on Carew because of the positional adjustment of when Carew played first base. That then becomes a part measurement of Carew's GM and manager, because I would have left him at 2B, and lived with mediocore defense(not much unlike Biggio), and then found a decent hitting first baseman instead.
Here was Minnesota's primary second baseman after Carew was moved to first base.
In primarily four seasons they had Bob Randall playing second base instead of Carew. Here are his totals...
1,325 AB....1 HR, 95 RBI, .257 AVG, .310 OB%, .311 SLG%
The kicker is that Randall's fielding runs were below average, and were actually WORSE than Carew's preceeding three years!
I think Minnesota messed up with Carew's perceived 'awkwardness' at second base. He wasn't that bad, and he wasn't much different than Biggio.
It isn't fair to downgrade Carew for this...as that is then a measurment of something out of his control, which isn't much differnet than using WINS for a measurement of starting pitchers.
In this case, I believe the offensive measurment between the two is the deciding factor, and Carew wins easily.
Other WARP players
Biggio 116
Sandberg 115
Grich 115
Whitaker 108
As always, good stuff. And I'm glad I made the distinction I did about thinking Carew was better than Biggio - I think that is a comparison that reasonable can disagree on. At the moment, I still disagree with you, but I'm keping an open mind.
First, you don't say whether the situational data in your post is park-adjusted. If not, I'd like to see the adjusted stats; if so, then I will ned to ponder this further - you may have convinced me.
Second, with all due respect to Carew, I think he was a bad second baseman and that the Twins stuck with him at second longer than they should have. He didn't generally make a fool of himself at second, but I think that was more or less his goal - to not make a fool of himself. Carew was the regular second baseman from 1967 to 1975, a period of 9 years. In 6 of those 9 years, the Twins were last or next-to-last in the league in double plays, including when he played with Leo Cardenas at short. In 1974, the Twins leapt to 5th in the league, but Carew's errors ballooned to 33. Part of the Twins problem was probably some weak shortstops, but shortstops came and went and the constant was Carew and overall poor infield defense. In 1976, the first year Carew went to first base, the Twins led the league in double plays.
Third, Biggio gets a fair amount of credit for being a regular catcher - and a good one - for three years. He was moved to second to save his legs since the Astros recognized they had a superstar on their hands. If Carew gets bonus points for playing a position below where he could have played, so too should Biggio.
Finally, I'd be more inclined to give Carew some extra credit for playing first when he could have played second if he had not been such a bad first baseman. For a skinny, athletic guy his play at first looked awfully similar to the unskinny, unathletic Boog Powell's.
Which leaves us in fairly sharp disagreement about how to compare the two as fielders; you're giving Biggio an unquantified small nod for his defense, I'm saying he deserves a substantial boost. But, again, if the situational runs advantage for Carew is as large as you've posted after making park adjustments then I do not think that defense could close a gap that large.
Those figures are park adjusted.
Keep in mind that those situational batter runs are not as era advanced as they should be. Carew is being compared to a higher level of peers than the thin watered down era of Biggio. The fact is, it is much harder to separate oneself from the league average in Carew's era, as opposed to Biggio's. Those batter runs compare to league averag. Often times, a quicker way to see how a player truly stacked among his league(as opposed to being compared vs. the average player), is the rank among the league. The following should put their offensive value into better light.
Here is their best top ten ranks in OPS+
Carew 1,3,3,4,4
Biggio...didn't have any!
That should shine a brighter light on how each man truly stood among his peers, and his value! At that point, I don't think it matters if Rod Carew was just a hair above a 'statue' at second base, especially considering Biggio wasn't much better at second himself.
According to Baseballprospectus Fielding runs, Rod Carew was only ONE defensive run below average for his time at second. Those fielding figures may be skewed, but even if they are wrong, it most likely is not wrong that much where he would be the far worst defensive second baseman in the league, where it would be necessary to move him to 1B.
Biggios' CAREER fielding runs above average(among all his positions) is NEGATIVE 126!
I would have to reconsider giving Biggio the edge in defense. We both know fielding runs are difficult, but there would have to be some large errors for Biggio to make up even the defensive ground.
As a headway for those who will say that Biggio is unfairly being compared against peers who were on roids, keep in mind that the league saw a near overnight increase in offesne in 1993 and a bigger one in 1994. Biggio was no different in that regard. He too saw the same jump, and his offense was affected by the environment jsut like everybody else's.
P.S. Biggio's career percentage of throwing out basestealers is .229. I would disagree with him being a good catcher. His fielding runs were always negative as well at catcher. Had he stayed at catcher a full career, and Career at 2B a full career, I don't think it makes much difference. Maybe a hair more advantagre in value for Biggio, but not nearly enough to make up the large offensive gap.
I'm going to need to do a little digging to try to figure out how these different systems are coming up with such wildly different results. By Win Shares, if you compare Biggio side by side with Carew, Biggio has the better best season, the better second-best season and so on through at least their top 12 seasons. And I don't know why that is, exactly. I'm certainly not taking the position that Win Shares is always right and all other sysyems always wrong, but I've never known Win Shares to reach a conclusion that was this much at odds with my own common sense response to basic stats. And my own look at the stats says that Carew should be beating Biggio at least as often as he gets beaten by Biggio. {Carew, incidentally, shows up under Win Shares as better than Grich in terms of his top few seasons and then essentially equal over the next ten or so seasons.}
I think that the lion's share of the difference is going to come down to defense. I couldn't swear to it in court, but if the system you're looking at is showing Biggio at -126 on fielding runs then my opinion is that not only is that system wrong, it is really wrong. A quick check might be to see where Johnny Bench comes out in that system - in some truly awful systems Bench shows up as a bad catcher (with a negative score). As I said earlier, my common sense (as opposed to any analysis) tells me Biggio was a good second baseman until he got old, and that Carew was a bad second baseman and then a bad first baseman.
Another thing that may be different in the comparisons is that Win Shares will never assign a negative value to a player's offense or defense. To do so has the perverse effect of dropping a player down in value if he is good enough to keep playing through injury or old age while the player that is not good enough to hang on keeps his value. I think Win Shares is 100% correct in avoiding this situation. Steve Carlton, for example, did not become a worse pitcher because somebody wanted him in their rotation - career value can only rise, albeit very, very slowly in Carlton's case. As I am not nearly as familiar with any other system as I am with Win Shares, I'd be intererested to know which of those you have cited show Biggio as falling in value over the last few years and which show him instead increasing in value at a slower rate.
At the end of the day, I am prepared to accept that Carew was indeed a better player than Biggio but I'm not going to give up until all my barrels are empty. If this was anyone but Biggio, I'd have probably given up already.
{And add me to the list of people who think Grich belongs in the HOF - another great career hidden by tough ballparks and clouded by ignorance of the value of taking a walk.}
As always, it is a pleasure to discuss baseball with you, even when we disagree.
Some of the current heavy hitters tear into WinShares...and I believe the main reason why is because there are no negative WinShares. If I recall, they dissected James's formula, and found that some things didn't quite add up....and even James himself mentioned something to that extent, but plowed through anyway. I believe there is also a subjective element to it as well. I myself only know about WinShare from what I read about the debates on the positives and negatives of it. I never actually read his book, or looked at his formula. I basically took the findings of those knowledgeable guys, and accepted it. Though I didn't throw out the measurement like some of them.
It is funny you bring up the common sense. My common sense showed how Carew beats Biggio up in OPS+, and how Carew was had top five OPS seasons, and Biggio never had a top ten. I knew that Carew wasn't a good fielder....but I also knew that Biggio wasn't.
And to have Carew beat him so handily in that pretty good measurement, I figured it would take a Nellie Fox defensive effort to close the gap, and Biggio was not that good.
Dallas, it is quite possible that you are viewing Biggio defensively, as Yankee fans view Jeter defensively. He may very well be the Derek Jeter of defensive second baseman...he looks better than he really is.
I too wonder why Biggio ranks so high in Winshares, when in some other pretty good measurements, he isn't nearly as close. It is very possible that he is a candidate for what the naysayers are talking about....the one where things just don't add up correctly.
Based on what I have read, I wouldn't accept WinShares as the final or 'top' word.
Catches will always be the most difficult to rate on those fielding measurements...and I wouldn't throw out all the other ratings because they couldn't nail down the catchers true effectiveness. There was a long discourse on Bench et all. You even get into the question of....Because Johnny Bench was so good at throwing runners out, the average baserunners never ran, so he never threw out as many runners to hurt the teams that don't realize the negative value of a caught stealing. It may have been better for Bench to be not quite as good a thrower, so that more runners would try and steal. It isn't an easy concept, but ther were great discussions on it.
P.S. It was baseballprospectus fielding runs...Bench checked in at 147 above average replacement. Their WARP is also very beneficial for players who hang on, as that is what got Biggio closer to Carew. It is very possible they set their replacement value too low. For example, we know how bad Pete Rose was his last few seasons....well he never had a negative score on WARP1. What were his WinShares in his last five seasons? It wouldn't be hard for a guy like Grich or Carew to hang on, be bad, and score more on WinShares or WARP.
<< <i>Dallas,
As always, it is a pleasure to discuss baseball with you, even when we disagree. >>
On that we agree - especially with players like Biggio who are my personal favorites I need to be challenged to learn anything and this thread has certainly challenged my biases.
<< <i>Some of the current heavy hitters tear into WinShares...and I believe the main reason why is because there are no negative WinShares. If I recall, they dissected James's formula, and found that some things didn't quite add up....and even James himself mentioned something to that extent, but plowed through anyway. I believe there is also a subjective element to it as well. I myself only know about WinShare from what I read about the debates on the positives and negatives of it. I never actually read his book, or looked at his formula. I basically took the findings of those knowledgeable guys, and accepted it. Though I didn't throw out the measurement like some of them. >>
The Win Shares formula (or rather, formulas) are pretty similar to what you're used to, at least on offense. It essentially uses the same linear weights/runs created stuff that everyone else uses but adds the constraint that a team's wins have to be accounted for by a combination of runs created by the offense and runs saved by the pitching/defense. I think you would find very little to seriously disagree with if you ran through those formulas. As for the negative issue, all I have seen James acknowledge (though he may have done so differently in something I haven't read) is that it doesn't work at the margins - players who truly are worse than a major leaguer has a right to be. But since those players quickly disappear, they don't really effect anything in the aggregate. If the White Sox had played Minoso in centerfield for the entire 1980 season, WinShares would not have accurately captured his "contribution" - but nothing like that ever really happens. The "subjective element" is indeed a problem that James should either scrap or at least fully disclose, but it only entered into his rankings of players, not the WinShares themselves - those are entirely formula driven.
<< <i>It is funny you bring up the common sense. My common sense showed how Carew beats Biggio up in OPS+, and how Carew was had top five OPS seasons, and Biggio never had a top ten. I knew that Carew wasn't a good fielder....but I also knew that Biggio wasn't.
And to have Carew beat him so handily in that pretty good measurement, I figured it would take a Nellie Fox defensive effort to close the gap, and Biggio was not that good.
Dallas, it is quite possible that you are viewing Biggio defensively, as Yankee fans view Jeter defensively. He may very well be the Derek Jeter of defensive second baseman...he looks better than he really is.
I too wonder why Biggio ranks so high in Winshares, when in some other pretty good measurements, he isn't nearly as close. It is very possible that he is a candidate for what the naysayers are talking about....the one where things just don't add up correctly.
Based on what I have read, I wouldn't accept WinShares as the final or 'top' word. >>
While on the one hand I think Biggio was better than Carew at offensive contributions not captured by OPS+, on the other hand I do recognize that those "other" things can't close the OPS+ gap (except maybe in 1997, when OPS+ or not, Biggio was one of the 2 or 3 best offensive performers in the league). I don't think I have a Jeter problem, but then neither do the Jeter people; that's probably part of it. But I've watched Biggio play second his entire career and I think he's pretty good, or at least used to be. No, it didn't always show in his stats but neither, I think, did his stats show him to be a bad fielder. Part of his problem was some truly awful teammates; in fact, I'll challenge you to find a second baseman who has played 10+ seasons with a worse collection of shortstops than Biggio had to endure. {Ironically, he got a real quality DP partner just as he got too old to make much use of him.} I think that WinShares does a much better job at isolating the fielding contributions of individual fielders than any other system, and that it's appraisal of Biggio as a good - not great - second baseman is accurate.
<< <i>Catches will always be the most difficult to rate on those fielding measurements...and I wouldn't throw out all the other ratings because they couldn't nail down the catchers true effectiveness. There was a long discourse on Bench et all. You even get into the question of....Because Johnny Bench was so good at throwing runners out, the average baserunners never ran, so he never threw out as many runners to hurt the teams that don't realize the negative value of a caught stealing. It may have been better for Bench to be not quite as good a thrower, so that more runners would try and steal. It isn't an easy concept, but ther were great discussions on it. >>
Yes, catchers can be tough but any system that publishes data - year after year - that shows Bench was not only bad but one of the worst ever has called its own internal logic into question. I'd respect a system - or statistician - much more if they simply refused to publish stats on catchers until they found a system that worked rather than publish data they surely know is wrong. Using the same stats everyone else has access to, WinShares shows that the catchers we all know were great to have, in fact, been great. James doesn't just give apoint for an assist, subtract two for an error, etc. He accounts for why Bill Buckner had so many assists (he always flipped to the pitcher covering); he accounts for why Garvey had so few assists (he always touched the bag himself instead of flipping to the pitcher). Anyone with eyes knows Garvey was infinitely better at first base than Buckner but most systems - based, I think, entirely on the "flip to first or run to the bag" choice - actually show Buckner was better than incompetent and that Garvey was worse than Buckner. Similar problems effect every position and James, to my knowledge, is the only one to dig deep enough to find them and correct for them. On defense, as of now, WinShares is the final word - not perfect, but powers of 10 better than the second-best system.
<< <i>P.S. It was baseballprospectus fielding runs...Bench checked in at 147 above average replacement. Their WARP is also very beneficial for players who hang on, as that is what got Biggio closer to Carew. It is very possible they set their replacement value too low. For example, we know how bad Pete Rose was his last few seasons....well he never had a negative score on WARP1. What were his WinShares in his last five seasons? It wouldn't be hard for a guy like Grich or Carew to hang on, be bad, and score more on WinShares or WARP. >>
I think a system should be beneficial to players that hang on - surely of two otherwise identical players the one who plays five more years is better than the one who has to retire. But ultimately, "better" doesn't just mean racking up Win Shares, or whatever - that's part of it, but peak value is at least as important, and even career value isn't effected much unless the player hanging on is still genuinely contributing. I have no problem with Biggio accumulating WinShares by playing longer than the others; but I am not confusing having more WinShares with being better. {Rose's WinShares for 1982 to 1986 were 17, 7, 8, 14 and 3. Generally speaking, 20 is a "good" season for a full-time player. Rose increased his career plate appearances by 18.4% in those five years, while his WinShares increased 9.8%; of course, his top 3, top 5 and top 10 seasons were unchanged. In a proper analysis combining peak and career value, that strikes me as about right - Rose should get positive credit for playing those five years, but they shouldn't have a huge impact.}
So where does that leave us? I think Biggio is probably better than the stats you're using show, but I think you're probably right on the final question. Biggio is still my main man, so I'll leave it at "probably".
I think I may have stumbled upon something that may be causing Biggio to get a higher WinShares rank. James deals in absolute value in WinShares....the Linear Weights deals with it in giving positive credit towards performances that are better than average. But Linear Weights could also do it above replacement level.
I presume that James deals with defense in terms of absolute value too, and thus a guy must be getting WinShares credit for basically playing a lot of innings in the field. If he is above average defensively he will move quickly with Winshares...if he is below average his winshares will move very slowly...but he will be getting some.
The fielding runs I used were baseballporspectus, and they were measured vs. League replacement level in both hitting and fielding. I can concede that using replacement level for offense is acceptable, especially for a second basemen, but look at the defense.
Here are Biggio's fielding runs as what he saved vs. a league replacement, and against the league avg second baseman.
YEAR....vs. league replacement......vs league avg.
1989.................11..............................-16
1990.................20...............................-10
1991.................19...............................-10
1992.................18...............................-15
1993.................31..............................-1
1994.................38..............................-4
1995.................26..............................-1
1996.................33...............................2
1997.................40..............................13
1998.................22..............................-5
1999.................20..............................-6
2000.................11..............................-4
2001..................8...............................-16
2002.................6................................-16
2003.................15..............................-2
2004.................1................................-12
2005.................15..............................-6
2006.................6................................-13
TOTOL.............334.............................-126
Craig Biggio is getting 334 runs of credit for his defense vs. league replacement...and -126 vs league average. WinShares I presume is giving the same type of credit as the 334 in absolute....and this is part of the reason why I think second baseman, SS, and catchers get too much of a position boost, AND TOO MUCH OF A BOOST FOR PLAYING A LOT OF DEFENSIVE INNINGS.
Guys like Biggio get a lot of hitting value for being able to distance themselves offesnively from a weak offensive position like 2B. They outdistance themself from the average second baseman, as well as the replacement 2B. I agree that that is a positive for a team, and they should be viewed like that.
BUT, they are getting the same credit on the defensive end of the spectrum! This is where baseball common sense comes into play. We all know that the major leagues and minor leagues have a dearth of offensive stars at those weak positions, BUT they are chalk full loaded with defensive standouts!
Looking at the chart above, and knowing what is available in the Majors and Minors, why is Craig Biggio getting so much credit extra for defense when he is being compared against the league replacement as opposed to the league average....when we know that there are plenty of reserve infieders who are just as good or better than the average major league second baseman?
Craig Biggio's career Batter runs vs. replacement and AVG
VS Replacement 732
VS LG Average 370
I can see how measuring vs league replacement is acceptable here, as we know that sticks are hard to find at 2B or catcher, so a big uptick in value is in order. But defense is not hard at all to find at second base or catcher, and any replacement at that position would be just as good defensively, and probably better.
SO I ask again, why should Biggio get 460 runs credit vs the replacement level, when we know that defensively the replacements are just as good as he, and most likely as good as the league average player?
In the Batter/Fielding runs Linear weights(measured vs avg player), Carew is at 39.2, and Biggio is at 32. IN Baseballprospectus WARP1(measured vs. repalcement level player), Carew is at 122, Biggio 116. Grich is at 50 and 116 respectively.
So, the more at bats and innings you play, the more 'credit' you get in WinShares and WARP....but in Linear Weights the more you play only helps if it is at an average or above pace.
Look at Biggio's last five seasons, and look how much extra credit he is getting for playing below average second base. For Winshares he is getting equivalent of 94 runs of credit to his value, but why? The replacement player would be a boost defensively, certainly not WORSE than a poor fielder like Biggio! This is where measuring vs league average makes more sense. Offensively is a different story, and that should proceed, but not on the defensive side.
So in WinShares, or WARP1, the more innings Biggio steps out at second base, the more unfair credit he is getting in value. So basically all Bobby Grich had to do was just roam around at second base, be below avg, and get defensive credit...despite the fact that there were better defenders who could be playing there in his stead.
Rod Carew most certainly could have stayed at second base and gotten all the WinShare credit for being below avg...just like Biggio has had in his last five seasons....and Carew wasn't as bad as he looked(based on the results).
First, some actual numbers for context. In 1997, Biggio is credited with 38 Win Shares - easily, and deservedly, his highest total. Of those 38, 7 were for defense. In 1999, Biggio had 31 Win Shares and 9 were for defense. In 1994, Biggio had 26 Win Shares, 5 of which were for defense. Those were the only three years in which Biggio appeared among the leaders in Win Shares by a second baseman (he was first in 1997 and 1999), and those figures are typical for a league leading second baseman. Rod Carew, understandably, never led the league in Win Shares at either of his positions, but a typical league leading first baseman gets credit for 3 or 4.
Some thoughts:
1) The "advantage" that Win Shares gives to a second baseman relative to a first baseman is about 4 or 5 Win Shares per season if we're talking about a very good second baseman, and maybe 2-3 per season for a below average one. Nothing about those numbers strikes me as wrong in any way - second base is a much harder position than first base, most first baseman would look like Bad News Bears if they tried to play there and even playing the position a little below average shows more skill than playing first base well.
2) Biggio was a good, not great second baseman. I don't know how else to phrase it so I'll just be blunt: I think that the figures that baseballprospectus are publishing are wrong. I'm sure that they have a formula for it, so I'm saying that I think their formula is wrong. I don't have access to any of their data, so I'll ask you if you can check on how they rate the following players: Johnny Bench, Granny Hamner, Willie Randolph and Steve Garvey (separately, as a third baseman and as a first baseman). I picked these players because they were not just good at their positions, they were stellar - with the exception of Garvey at third where he was putrid. Win Shares recognizes these self-evident truths - most systems crash and burn around them. If baseballprospectus is rating these players as stellar (and putrid) as they should, then I'll be surprised, but I'll also quickly concede that the argument for Carew over Biggio has moved from "probably" to "definitely"
3) If Biggio was a bad second baseman, then his advantage over Carew would be very small under Win Shares. But I think your initial thought is probably correct, Biggio is making up the offensive gap in Win Shares (which is not as large as the offensive gap using the stats you posted) with higher defensive totals. After all is said and done, that doesn't bother me very much - it's the relatively small offensive gap that bothers me more. Biggo was not a bad second baseman, certainly not a below average second baseman. He is now, but that should have no impact on how we evaluate his career.
4) I hear your argument with respect to negative values, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. Unless you can explain to me why, of two players who each play 2,000 games with identical stats, the one who goes on to play 1,000 more games as a slightly below average player is worse than the player who, had he played 1,000 more games would have been simply horrible. If a player has negative value - in ANY meaningful sense of the word - then he will not play. Period. There are no exceptions to that rule, at least ones that would last in any team's lineup for more than a month. Playing second base well enough to keep your job has positive value - most players on any given team could not do it. And playing in the major leagues, especially as an every day player, can not even theoretically demonstrate that a player is worse than another player who is not good enough to play any more. But that is exactly what the systems you are citing are doing - crediting more value (0) to a player who no team wants in their lineup than to a player that is playing every day for an actual team. I can tell you with certainty that there is no argument that will ever convince me that Nap Lajoie (deceased) is currently a better second baseman than Craig Biggio. I'm pretty certain that any ball hit to him would not be stopped. I'm equally certain that my faith in a system that says that Lajoie, despite being dead, is a better second baseman than Biggio is zero.
5) My opinion, currently on shaky ground, that Biggio was better than Carew has next to nothing to do with his last five seasons. So while I understand your concern that he is still accumulating fielding Win Shares, he isn't accumulating very many and they aren't what makes Biggio (maybe) better than Carew. I am much more concerned that baseballprospectus has a second baseman falling behind dead people in the same year he wins a Gold Glove Award. That makes me question the system itself, and why I should pay attention to it.
6) Finally, you made reference to Biggio distancing himself offensively from other second baseman. No argument, but I wanted to make sure that you understood that Win Shares does not compare players by position when allocating Win Shares. That sort of thing would be difficult if not impossible to defend.
I've also noticed that since this debate began Biggio has been one of the hottest players in the league, so I'll keep it up all season if I have to.
Have a great fourth!
<< <i>I've also noticed that since this debate began Biggio has been one of the hottest players in the league, so I'll keep it up all season if I have to.
Keep up the great work
Some defensive numbers from baseballprospectus.....
NAME ...........vs REPLACEMENT............vs AVG
Jeter......................156..........................-109
Randolph...............543...........................105
Bench....................510...........................107
Hamner.................282...........................-9
Biggio....................334..........................-127
Garvey...................243...........................44
Grich.....................515............................110
Sandberg..............522...........................189
Carew..................225..............................1.........as 2B
Carew..................113..............................19.......as 1B
Total Baseball also has has similar results. That means there are two defensive measurements that disagree with WinShares in Biggio's case.
I've always said that defense is hard to capture, and I don't think James figures are good enough to just discredit completely two other measurements.
Finally on defesne. Since we know that the level of validity of defensive measures is not near as high as offensive, then it really doesn't make sense to use a defensive measurement(that is already in disagreement with two others), and have that as the primary factor in overcoming a large gap in the valid offensive measurement.
Dallas, the main point of my last post was that I find it extremely hard to believe that the difference between the league avg 2B and the league replacement second baseman is that vast defensively. More likely, the average replacement second baseman is just as good defensively as the MLB avg second baseman. So yes, Biggio hanging on at 2B is costing his team defensive runs because there would be plenty of replacements who would be better defensively. Yet he is getting credit for wins/runs. That doesnt make sense.
2)Yes, second base is harder to play than first, and most first baseman would have trouble there...BUT NOT ALL. Willie McCovey would, but there are plenty who wouldn't.
Also, a five foot nine second baseman would also be somewhat of a liablity at first base, because he wouldn't have as big a reach radius as a taller first baseman. The biggest defensive factor of a first baseman is the balls he reaches, and digs...and there is currently not a measurement on earth that captures this ability. A guy like Biggio would not reach and stretch for outs, nearly as many balls as a tall first baseman with some flexibility.
In this case, it matters none, as Rod Carew clearly showed he could handle second base anyway...and back to my first thought, because an organization made a poor decision on moving him...does not change Carew's true ability. So it makes no sense to downgrade Carew in true ability for that decision. Think Mike Piazza....a terrible catcher...had he been moved to first base many years ago, then all the ratings would have him downgraded severly in talent...but his talent didn't change. Same with Arod. He gets moved to third and his talent changes according to WinShares. But, his talent didnt' change.
3) The offense. It still seems James WinShares is giving Biggio pretty much the same offensive value as Carew. This boggles my mind. I don't see that at all...and the most valid measurements dont' see it either.
It is giving a hitter like Carew, who was among the leagues' best, similar value to a guy who wasn't close to the best(and in a severely watered down era). This just doesn't make sense.
<< <i>NAME ...........vs REPLACEMENT............vs AVG
Jeter......................156..........................-109
Randolph...............543...........................105
Bench....................510...........................107
Hamner.................282...........................-9
Biggio....................334..........................-127
Garvey...................243...........................44
Grich.....................515............................110
Sandberg..............522...........................189
Carew..................225..............................1.........as 2B
Carew..................113..............................19.......as 1B
Total Baseball also has has similar results. That means there are two defensive measurements that disagree with WinShares in Biggio's case.
I've always said that defense is hard to capture, and I don't think James figures are good enough to just discredit completely two other measurements. >>
I'm a bit ambivalent about these figures. On the one hand, Hamner's negative figure tells me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this system is largely using the give a point for an assist, subtract two for an error, etc. method. Hamner played on a team with a pitching staff that gave up a hugely atypical number of fly balls compared to ground balls. That system is not accounting for that and it is dead wrong in its evaluation of Hamner. On the other hand it's doing at least a decent job of evaluating Randolph, and a less-embarrassing-than-others job of evaluating Bench. You don't show Garvey separately at first and third - if the figure above is for both positions combined it may not be that bad but I'd still be interested in seeing the positional breakdown. If that's only for his play at first, then it may be worse than Hamner's. Aside from my skepticism in any system that claims any player can become a worse player by playing longer, I am skeptical of any system that claims Biggio was that bad a second baseman. It doesn't gibe with James' system, it doesn't gibe with Gold Glove voters' perceptions, it doesn't gibe with the perceptions of his own managers and coaches and it doesn't gibe with my own eyes. That two systems using similarly flawed methods reached the same conclusion means that they gibe with each other, but that just isn't doing it for me.
<< <i>The offense. It still seems James WinShares is giving Biggio pretty much the same offensive value as Carew. This boggles my mind. I don't see that at all...and the most valid measurements dont' see it either.
It is giving a hitter like Carew, who was among the leagues' best, similar value to a guy who wasn't close to the best(and in a severely watered down era). This just doesn't make sense. >>
Other than a slight quibble - Biggio was indeed "close to the best" in the late 90's - I don't really disagree. I will say that if Biggio is being overvalued by James, then someone else on the Astros is being undervalued and it's not obvious from their Win Shares who that would be. Also, if he is undervaluing Carew then one or more of his teammates is necessarily being overvalued and it's not clear who that might be. If there is something in his methods that creates a bias towards Biggio and/or against Carew that separates them from their teammates then that would be hard to spot, but James' method of allocating offensive Win Shares essentially comes down to runs created using essentially the same formulas everyone else uses. There shouldn't be bias in that.
What I want the answer to be is that you made a mistake and the figures you posted initially weren't park-adjusted, because that would clear this up very nicely. But if that's not it then I'm not disagreeing with you - however large our disagreement on defensive value there should not be enough there to push Biggio ahead of Carew.
I noticed a couple of defensive comments about Garvey in your posts...and about Buckner in previous posts.
You mentioned that Buckner was known for flipping the ball to the pitcher, and Garvey taking it himself, and that this is why Buckner is typically ahead of Garvey in most defensive measurements...because of the extra assists as a result.
If I remember correctly, wasn't Garvey known for being too conservative on making throws to other bases to avoid making throwing errors...and the resulting effect was less errors and less assists as well(and more advancing into scoring position)?
For Buckner, I don't see him at all as a terrible defensive first baseman. I actually thought he was excellent with the glove over there, and I watched him all the time with the Cubs. Surre, he may have piled on a few extra assists flipping to the pitcher, but he was also handy with the glove...cetainly not butcher like McCovey. I thought he was very good at grabbing bad throws, and digging.
Here are some of my observatiosn on James defensive wins shares.
1) For first baseman, part of the formula includes errors made by third baseman and shortstops, when they rate the first baseman. It doesn't say if it is throwing errors only, or total errors. If total errors, then that leaves wide margin for error. If it is seperated for throwing erros, it reduces margin of error, but still has some.
2) Arm rating for a first baseman. How does he determine an arm rating? This can't be close to accurate. Even if arm strength can be accurate, accuracy is much harder to determine.
3) I'm not sure I agree about the bound limits James sets that can account for who gets what and how much. Pitchers can receive no less than 60% of the WinShares for defense, and no more than 75%. To me these are arbritary points and cutoffs.
4)Pitchers and fielders receive 50% responsibility for errors made. That is a tough one to accept(maybe because I was a pitcher
I'm just looking at some of this now in detail. For the defensive end, like I said before, unless you know exactly how many balls(and how hard) they were hit in a players direction...in relation to all other players...defensive measurements can never be considered close at all to the offensive ones.
And for the offensive ones, we already have a system that goes into greater detail, and thus attributes a players true effect to a higher degree than WinShares runs created driven formula. I would rely more on the Linear Weights with situations, than I would on the WinShares way. It is more direct.
WinShares seems pretty good though, and I wouldn't discount its overall rankings. I would certainly add it as a piece to the puzzle, but not numer one.
All measurement systesm have prbolems with a couple of things right now(and they still haven't solved it)
1)The true era adjustments. They still have not accounted for the reasons why players have an easier time to thrive in todays era, and in the pre war times. They just publish their formulas and ignore the high level of bias towards those eras.
2) They don't treat positional adjusments properly. Just like in the Carew case moving to 1B. He could have easily continued to play 2B, yet he gets downgraded for his move to 1B. Plus they underestimate the defensive value of a 1B...some have it on the level of DH!!
Yeah, second base is a bit harder for an Eddie Murray, or skinny McGwire to play....but those guys both played third...Murray was an excellent high school pitcher. They are good athletes. Sure they wouldn't do as well at second as Morgan or Biggio....but Morgan and Biggio would not do as good at first as those guys! And I don't think either one of them would do much worse than Mike Piazza at catcher...how close is Piazza to zero percent thrown out anyway? Yet those guys get a HUGE positional boost at second and catcher...EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSIVE REPLACEMENTS AT SECOND AND CATCHER WOULD BE BETTER...YET THEY GET CREDIT ABOVE THE REPALCEMENTS FOR DEFENSE(this was my point earlier)!
And what about the left handed centerfielders? Guys like Murray and skinny McGwire would be able to handle 3B, SS, 2B, and catcher better than he would...yet the left handed centerfielder gets much more credit for defense.
The position boosts are too high, especially since they can't even account for one of the primary assets of the first baseman...picking the balls.
As long as I'm not specifically defending Biggio, sure, Win Shares defensive measurements are obviously far from perfect. But if you go through all the mountains of things James tried to adjust for - and it sounds like you have at least started doing that - there really is no way that his results couldn't be better than everyone else's - at least for most people most of the time. Garvey had a lousy arm - that's why he was such a terrible third baseman, and why it's so absurd that some defensive systems show that he was pretty good - but other than that he was one of the best I've ever seen. And other than flips to the pitcher and short throws to second base, how often does a first baseman get an assist? The statistic, like putouts for a third baseman, is essentially meaningless - it measures nothing of value. Rating first basemen by their assists makes the results almost entirely random. Between 1982 and 1986, Bill Buckner had four seasons where he made more assists than Keith Hernandez ever made in a season. Herandez got a huge share of his assists charging bunts and throwing out runners all over the field - he was without a doubt the best first baseman of my lifetime and quite possibly of all time. Buckner got his assists by playing 30 feet behind the bag and, when they didn't roll between his legs, flipping balls to first. Any system that ranks Buckner in the same hemisphere as Hernandez at first base is doing a lousy job of ranking first basemen. But any system that counts assists as meaningful can hardly avoid ranking him higher than Hernandez. James tries as best as he can to subtract the 3-1 assists out of the equation; I'm sure he doesn't get it exactly right, but the mere fact that he tries virtually guarantees that he's going to get a better answer than anyone else.
And I do hear you about the positional adjustments being skewed unfairly for some players who are playing an easier position than they are capable of playing - but what can be done about that? If you have a team of 8 players, all of whom are capable of playing shortstop how do you justify giving all of them either positive runs or Win Shares or whatever as if they were shortstops. If you do, then your system falls apart because the numbers don't add up any more. If you add the number of runs a team actually allows to the number of runs the individual players supposedly "saved" - you have to come up with a number that is very close to an average number of runs allowed by a team or your system is meaningless. In fact, I know of several systems that do this in some form or another - their runs "saved" don't add up to a number that can be tied to anything in the real world - and I know the results have to be meaningless.
How about a team with 14 or 15 players good enough to be everyday players on some team? Are we going to measure their offensive contribution based on their actual production or on what we guess they were capable of producing? I understand your gripe about Carew playing first and suffering for it, but the alternative is to allow subjective opinion too much weight. This is, incidentally, the kind of thing that James considers when he ranks players - have a player's stats suffered for reasons outside of his control? He gives DiMaggio, for example, a huge subjective factor because he assumes that if he had not gone off to war he would have had several outstanding seasons; he gives other players credit for being stuck on the bench behind obviously inferior players. But James states up front that his rankings are subjective, that they are not based on any formula. He assigns Win Shares based solely on runs created and runs saved. Objectively, Carew played first base and had much less impact on the runs his team allowed than he did when he played second base. Subjectively, we might think that Carew could have still been a good enough second baseman, but objectively we don't know that.
Again, I'm not arguing that this line of reasoning doesn't have flaws, but those flaws are unavoidable in any truly objective measurement. Subjectively, we can assume that Carew was still capable of playing second base and rank him a bit higher than we would based solely on his objective measurements - but then we have to acknowledge that we are ranking him based, in part, on a guess. And, if we are then going to compare him to other players about whom we may have no idea whether they should get a similar boost, we are on shaky ground in calling what we are doing a "system".
I fully understand that Carew's guess that he could have continued playing could be applied to a lot of players like you said. But you can make reasonable judgements when looking. In the Biggio/Carew case, a very reasonable judgement can be made that he could have. It is part of the package when judging how good a player is. Why should Arod be not as good a player because he moved to third? His ability didn't change...but his WinShares will.
But, the one thing I have said about defensive value replacement, you haven't addressed yet. Why would any second baseman or catcher who plays everyday innings get such a large defensive value when you consider that most likely the defensive replacement would be just as good or better?
In WARP or WinSHares, any second baseman or catcher who plays above a statue ability is getting defensive credit. That is absurd considering that a good defensive replacement isn't hard to find there.
Consider Mike Piazza, possibly the worst defensive catcher of all time! When you look at his defensive runs above a replacement level catcher, he is getting credit for 167 runs in WARP! I am sure he is getting similar treatment for WinShares. How can he be getting positive defensive credit when whomever you put behind the plate would be doing better defensively? It is after all being measured vs. the replacement level catcher.
Not to mention that the MLB replacment level may even be higher than the MLB average because of some guys who are starting at those positions are only there because of their bat. So we don't know how high the replacement level really goes...but I do know for certain that it is higher than Mike Piazza's level(and probably jsut as high as the MLB average). Piazza by the way is -145 vs the average...and that is far more telling of his defensive value.
I would say that any system that is giving him positive defensive credit has some problems.
Dallas, the knock on Garvey was that he didn't throw the ball around the the ifield as much...and that he would rather throw to first on a bunt instead of trying to get second or possibly third. A guy like Murray use to make those throws. Does James know exactly how many of Buckner's flips were of the variety you spoke of?
But Dallas, one of the biggest attributes at defense of a first baseman is catching the tough balls and make close plays outs. James, nor anyone does anything to remotely capture this. The closest James gets is judging on the errors of the SS and 3B...which is extremely flawed. I'm sure whoever was playing first base when Jose Offerman was at shortstop has to be undervalued in WinShares....or when Steve Sax went through his thing.