Larkin had a long career, but you're 100% correct, on the lack of games played. That has been the downfall, of many players. Just think where a healthy Griffey, could possibly be.

 

Biggio has had a long career as well. Here are the years and games played....

 

Larkin - 19yrs (2,180)

Biggio - 20yrs (2,801)

 

Which is a difference of 621 games and 3.83 years of games....big difference in numbers/stats.

 

But then we get into an argument over what is more important, longevity or being the best at your position in your league for 6+ years? It's like a Koufax v. Don Sutton argument. Lark may not get in, but from 88-96 there wasn't a better overall shortstop in the NL. He was the first 30/30 shortstop in history, was MVP in '95, spearheaded the '90 championship team, and was one of the best defensive SSs in the league. He had a lot of errors...ok, but he played the majority of his career on turf and still got to a lot of balls that shortstops not named Vizquel or Smith would have gotten to.

Doesn't "feel" like a HOF'er to me either.

 

 

I don't think so either, but he's one of the best offensive SS's of his era. He has a ring and a NL MVP so it might be pretty close.

But then we get into an argument over what is more important, longevity or being the best at your position in your league for 6+ years? It's like a Koufax v. Don Sutton argument. Lark may not get in, but from 88-96 there wasn't a better overall shortstop in the NL. He was the first 30/30 shortstop in history, was MVP in '95, spearheaded the '90 championship team, and was one of the best defensive SSs in the league. He had a lot of errors...ok, but he played the majority of his career on turf and still got to a lot of balls that shortstops not named Vizquel or Smith would have gotten to.

Than the seasons, stats and accomplishments become meaningless, thus making opinions the criteria and not the players.

 

My opinion, Larking was a better offensive SS, than he was defensive....again, just my contention.

 

I apologize for getting this thread off track and YES, to me Biggio is a 1st ballot HOF. Now, it remains to be seen what the "voter" decide.

Than the seasons, stats and accomplishments become meaningless, thus making opinions the criteria and not the players.

 

My opinion, Larking was a better offensive SS, than he was defensive....again, just my contention.

 

I apologize for getting this thread off track and YES, to me Biggio is a 1st ballot HOF. Now, it remains to be seen what the "voter" decide.

 

Not necessarily true. Koufax was the best pitcher in baseball for 7 seasons. He was also one of the best of all time. While Larkin was never the best shortstop in baseball, we was the best overall shortstop in the National League for 8 seasons. I believe that longevity and total numbers should carry significant weight, and for that reason Biggio is in, though I don't believe 1st ballot. However, I feel that a HOFer can also be that player that ruled his position for 7-10 years.

Not necessarily true. Koufax was the best pitcher in baseball for 7 seasons. He was also one of the best of all time. While Larkin was never the best shortstop in baseball, we was the best overall shortstop in the National League for 8 seasons. I believe that longevity and total numbers should carry significant weight, and for that reason Biggio is in, though I don't believe 1st ballot. However, I feel that a HOFer can also be that player that ruled his position for 7-10 years.

Koufax struggled early in his career, very bad....You are correct, he was extremely dominant but injury stopped his career. Position players, lose considerable AB's, Hits and chances when hurt. Pitchers, usually have their careers ended, like Koufax. Larkin, retired after battling injuries for years.

 

Here is Koufax's stats and I would guess many, don't realize his totals....

 

Koufax was 165-87 in 12 yrs

55 - 2-2

56 - 2-4

57 - 5-4

58 - 11-11

59 - 8-6

60 - 8-13

61 - 18-13

62- 14-7

63 - 25-5

64 - 19-5

65 - 26-8

66- 27-9

Because first of all they didn't play the game so they're using formulas that they think takes all factors into consideration, when there are several intangible factors. First you can adjust Whitaker's stats by using the leagues percentages all you want but what if you actually try and move his career to the years Biggio played. Would the offensive explosion have increased his stats proportionally or would the fact that he would have played 8 seasons in spacious Comerica Park instead of Tiger Stadium's bandbox have offset it? Whitaker played mostly in the 80's and early 90's when the leagues pitching was deeper so it would make sense that he would hit the expansion era pitching better. However, in the 1980s complete games were still commonplace and middle relievers were a necessary evil for when a starter got shelled early--not a vital part of a winning team, he's have had to have faced many more left-handed specialist/set up men--could that have affected his numbers? Then there's the conditioning factor, a lot of guys from the 70s and 80s didn't lift weights much thinking that it might affect their games. Would Whitaker have worked out and been in the kind of shape that the guys in Biggio's heyday were? Who knows? Even if he did could it have negatively affected his play, some guys got too ripped and were better before they worked out as much (just a bit player but Gabe Kapler was an everyday player before he sculpted himself). Finally there's the money issue. While Whitaker made plenty of money playing when he did what kind of money would he be worth today? Would that money have affected him or caused him to not play as long because he was set? Whitaker only played over 140 games 8 times in 19 seasons, Biggio 15 in 20--are the projections based on a 162 game schedule? If they are then they're more realistic for Biggio because he played a lot more games in only 1 more season. The computer analysis can't factor things like that. I especially wonder about the difference in playing 8 seasons in Comerica instead of Tiger Stadium. Do you or the computer programmers have answers for these questions?

 

All fair concerns. However, the folks at places like Baseball Prospectus are way ahead of you , me, K3, and HSSRB when it comes to taking ALL factors into considerations including many that you did not list.

 

These guys are not rookies. They're smarter than you and me. Unlike us , they have years and years worth of analysis and sophisticated tools . Park factor (Comerica vs Tiger/Astrodome vs Enron) are tall taken into account. They also taken into account the # of games so that players like Babe Ruth can be compared to Barry Bonds.

 

But lets assume that the geeks wouldn't know a foul ball from a hackeysack game. Why is it so hard to admit that all eras/decades are not equal? When you insist that Player A from the 70s did/did not have the same stats as Player B from the 80s and totally disregard that its not the same game offensively/defensively, you are doing exactly what you say CANNOT be done - compare players from different eras.

Now you're arguing, just to be arguing....Here it is in a nutshell, grasp it or let it go, doesn't matter.

 

Baseball as you know, has been around a long, long time. Different pitchers, ballparks, baseballs, bats, gloves....I'm presuming, that players today are better than the 1930's, due to conditioning, technology, training, media, coaching advancements and size. How a player from a different era would fit into today, I'll only speculate, which is what you are doing.

 

.

 

See my response to AVGJoe - All of the factors you say cannot be taken into account are accounted for.

Okay, let me be a little less literal -- were you among the best players of your generation. Obviously both of them get in. I'm not originating this idea, you hear it from all of the voters all of the time. I'm not sure there is a hard fast rule, and I'm fine with that. If you don't think a guy "feels" like a HOF'er than that is great, but you shouldn't have to compare him to someone from a different era to prove your case. That is my point.

 

You cannot have an HOF filled with the best players from each generation. Its not that way today. You can quote Gammons and Grande all you want but the voters , consciously or subconsciously, are ALWAYS measuring the players on the ballot to players already in the HOF. How do they do that? They either wing it or they try to use some tools available.

 

You are not naive enough to believe that the "best of their generation" guideline is THE factor. It may be A factor but the busts already present in Cooperstown are EXACTLY how the candidates are being measured.

Heck, how can you compare Ruth's 60 homers in the 20's to anything today? Balls that bounce over the fence aren't home runs now...they were then. That is right, until 1930 in the AL and 1931 in the NL a ball could bounce over or through a fence and be ruled a home run. Does your magical "adjusted numbers" factor for that? Maybe...maybe not. How really could they? Do they know exactly how many of Honus Wagner's home runs in 1911 bounced over a fence? No.

 

The rules of the game change every year, no matter how good the formula is to standardize the stats, IMHO, it is still a man made creation to try and do something that you just fundamentally can't do.

 

While you oppose it, with your clever "who is better looking argument," I still think best players of an era at a position is a better judge. Tough luck if you happen to be a leadoff hitter in the 80's or 90's, you may have been great, but you weren't better than Rickey Henderson. Who cares if Craig Biggio is better than Lou Whitaker in some computer generated stat comparison? I don't. I care if Lou Whitaker was the best secondbaseman of his era, and if so, usher him to Upstate NY. If not, congratulate him on his career and put him in the Tiger HOF. Craig Biggio has been among the best offensive players in the game for nearly two decades, he has been versatile, he has been consistent. He has played the right way, he has been a solid guy. He has amassed one of the best offensive careers of anyone in his era. Good enough for me.

 

I DON'T CARE HOW HE COMPARES TO LOU WHITAKER. Immaterial. Unneccessary. If someone comes along better than Robin Yount are you taking him out of the Hall? No. He was good enough when he retired, compared to his peers, in the opinions of those closest to the game, to be enshrined. I don't care how he compares in an adjusted fashion to those that came 25 years before or 20 years after.

 

If those that covered the game thought Lou Whitaker as HOF worthy when he retired he'd be in. They didn't. He isn't. End of story. Compare their stats until the cows come home. Doesn't matter.

 

Maybe the way I view this process seems absurd to you, but I appear to be in step with those paid to vote on such things, so I'm in pretty good company.

 

Your assumptions about what is disregarded are wrong.

 

Secondly, the Babe Ruth vs McGwire question is a SIMPLE example of how you cannot judge stats evenly as those of you are doing right now. I have a feeling you get that but you then disregard it later.

 

I've somehow become the champion of the Lou Whitaker fan club yet he was simply the first person to pop into my mind when the Biggio/HOF question was asked.

Just my opinion but not many, if any better defensive SS, than Jeter.

 

.

 

One measure that has been put together takes into account such factors as park factor, total balls in play, groundball/flyball ratio, pitcher handedness, and men on base. The intent is to not punish players if they play in a HR park, play behind a staff that strikes out a lot of batters, staffs that are flyball staffs, etc.

 

Using a simple measure like fielding % only takes into account balls gotten to. You cannot call an error on a player who cannot get to a ball in play.

 

In Jeter's case when compared to an average fielder at his position, he finished as low as 24 out of 26 and as high as 9th out of 27 with most being int he 20s. He doesn't get to many balls compared to others and he's just OK with the balls he gets to.Some joke that his nickname is "pastadiving" because you often hear "past a diving Jeter" during broadcasts.

 

He'll make the HOF without question but its for his offense and his intangibles and cluth plays.

One more item: How a player did as compared to players in his own era is 100% included in the equation for the normalization factor.

Heck, how can you compare Ruth's 60 homers in the 20's to anything today? Balls that bounce over the fence aren't home runs now...they were then. That is right, until 1930 in the AL and 1931 in the NL a ball could bounce over or through a fence and be ruled a home run. Does your magical "adjusted numbers" factor for that? Maybe...maybe not. How really could they? Do they know exactly how many of Honus Wagner's home runs in 1911 bounced over a fence? No.

 

 

So which is it:

 

A. Comparing stats from different times is the way to go ( Biggio had better stats than Whitaker)

 

or

 

B. You can't compare stats from different eras because the game changes(see your post above)?

 

It can't be both.

One measure that has been put together takes into account such factors as park factor, total balls in play, groundball/flyball ratio, pitcher handedness, and men on base. The intent is to not punish players if they play in a HR park, play behind a staff that strikes out a lot of batters, staffs that are flyball staffs, etc.

 

Using a simple measure like fielding % only takes into account balls gotten to. You cannot call an error on a player who cannot get to a ball in play.

 

In Jeter's case when compared to an average fielder at his position, he finished as low as 24 out of 26 and as high as 9th out of 27 with most being int he 20s. He doesn't get to many balls compared to others and he's just OK with the balls he gets to.Some joke that his nickname is "pastadiving" because you often hear "past a diving Jeter" during broadcasts.

 

He'll make the HOF without question but its for his offense and his intangibles and cluth plays.

This tells me all I want to know, about this Baseball Prospectus....:lol: I've seen plenty of game and I think I have a fairly good understanding, of ability. These measures and equations, are all formulas derived by a human, entered by a human and observed by a human, before being entered into the geek pod.

 

Each post, brings on a new set of questions and seemingly, unending intent at just getting to the new comment.....Biggio is a 1st ballot HOF for me.

 

I've seen Jeter make plays, others would be the cut-man for....:lol:

This tells me all I want to know, about this Baseball Prospectus....:lol: I've seen plenty of game and I think I have a fairly good understanding, of ability. These measures and equations, are all formulas derived by a human, entered by a human and observed by a human, before being entered into the geek pod.

 

Each post, brings on a new set of questions and seemingly, unending intent at just getting to the new comment.....Biggio is a 1st ballot HOF for me.

 

I've seen Jeter make plays, others would be the cut-man for....:lol:

 

No one is questioning your ability to watch a game. However, even you will admit that a)you don't watch Jeter on a daily basis and b)you can't watch the other shortstops enough to come up with an accurate read.

 

IMO we all make decisions on what limited information we have . We also make it on sometimes false assumptions (see all of the arguments in this thread where folks list all of the reaosns something is wrong without truly understanding it) because , again, its all we know.

 

I think , K3, you would be in the minority when it comes to people who think that Jeter is a top-notch defensive shortstop. Yes, he makes some plays that others cannot make . He is the king of the throw off the jump while deep in the hole. You must admit, though, that range is not his strength so balls go into the outfield that others would get to.

For K3, HSSRB, Avg Joe, and others who think all of this is bunk, you have two choices.

 

1. Read a book like "Baseball Between the Numbers" and get a TRUE understanding of how these numbers and evaluations work and then make a determination of its validity.

 

or

 

2. Continue making incorrect assumptions when you read how a player is measured. Unfortuanately, I can't rewrite the book for you to digest.