Biggio is one of my all-time favorite players. Does anyone remember, when he started as a Catcher....

 

Yeah, him Benito Santiago and B J Surhoff came in the league around the same time and were curiosities in the fact that they were catchers that could steal bases--something you didn't see very often at the time.

:thumb: catcher, CF, 2b, and I believe that he also played 3rd at one time.

 

1950 Games at Second Base

427 Games at Catcher

363 Games in the Outfield

20 Games at DH but no games at third base.

How about Lou Whitaker? Should he have been a first-time HOFer? Heck should he be in at all? Before you answer, take into consideration not just his numbers (as we're doing with Biggio) but how those numbers compared to the numbers in that era.

 

Let me give you an example. In 1968, Carl Yaz won the Triple Crown with a batting average of .301. Not overly impressive, correct? It IS impressive when you at how the rest of the league did. The rest of the AL averaged .230 overall. Now .301 sounds pretty impressive.

 

Biggio's numbers compared to Whitakers number seem to favor Biggio. When "normalized" , they really do not. I'd argue Lou before Biggs.

 

Biggio's numbers compared to Whitakers number seem to favor Biggio. When "normalized" , they really do not. I'd argue Lou before Biggs.

 

Than you're going to go blind trying to "normalize" everyone's numbers here on out. Have fun with that.

 

If you argue Lou over Biggio I'll happily take the other side of the debate. Not close, IMHO. Whitaker was a fine player, Biggio was an excellent player at 3 positions.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with Lou Whitaker being in the Hall. However, Lou getting in OVER Biggio I would have a problem with. To me it is as simple as 1827 runs vs. 1386 runs, 3017 hits vs. 2369 hits, and 413 Stolen Bases vs. 143 Stolen Bases.

Than you're going to go blind trying to "normalize" everyone's numbers here on out. Have fun with that.

 

If you argue Lou over Biggio I'll happily take the other side of the debate. Not close, IMHO. Whitaker was a fine player, Biggio was an excellent player at 3 positions.

 

As I said before, the intangible for Biggs is his moving from position to position. That doesn't mean he was a better 2nd baseman. I'd bet you won't find hardly ANY people who follow the game say that Biggs is a better 2nd baseman that Sweet Lou.

 

Secondly, I don't have to go blind trying to normalize. Too many geeks out there have already performed that task.

 

So, Lou finished his career with 244 HRs and a little over 1,000 RBIs along with a .276 avg and .426 SLG.

 

However, taking into account the era vs today, his adjusted numbers are as follows:

 

HR 339

RBI 1237

AVG .289

SLG .479

 

Biggs is at 287 , 1160, .282, .434.

 

 

Add in the DEFINITIVE advantage with the glove at F4 and I'll take Lou.

 

 

Here's how the normalized numbers came about:

 

 

[ Return To Top ]

 

 

Converts the player's batting statistics into a context that is the same for everybody. The major characteristics of the translation are: 1) that the translated EQA should equal the original, all-time adjusted EQA (within some margin for error); 2) that all seasons are expanded to a 162 game schedule; 3) that the statistics are adjusted to a season where an average hitter would have, per 650 PA: 589 AB, 153 H, 31 DB, 3 TP, 19 HR, 56 BB, 5 HBP, 113 SO, 10 SB, 5 CS, 79 R and 75 RBI. His rates would be a .260 batting average, .330 onbase average, .420 slugging average, and a .260 EQA with 76 EQR.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with Lou Whitaker being in the Hall. However, Lou getting in OVER Biggio I would have a problem with. To me it is as simple as 1827 runs vs. 1386 runs, 3017 hits vs. 2369 hits, and 413 Stolen Bases vs. 143 Stolen Bases.

 

As I've stated, comparing numbers without taking into account the era can lead one down the wrong path.

I'd bet you won't find hardly ANY people who follow the game say that Biggs is a better 2nd baseman that Sweet Lou.

 

Nor did I.

 

However, taking into account the era vs today, his adjusted numbers are as follows:

 

HR 339

RBI 1237

AVG .289

SLG .479

 

I put as much stock into "adjusted numbers" as I do the weather forecast. That is statistical noise. His numbers are what they are. Should we adjust the single-season Home Run Record to about 129, because that is probably what Ruth's 60 bombs in the 20's would adjust to.

 

Lou was a nice player, a very good player, however, IMHO Biggio had the much better career. I'm not dogging the only guy to ever play in an All-Star game with a jersey bought at a souvenir stand and a number drawn on the back with a marker. Love that....

He is in without a doubt.

 

PLus I don't understand 1st ballot or not. If a player is a HOFer than he should be in when he is eligible. I know some players after a while get in and that is understandable but when a player has 3000 hits or 300 wins that is automatic.

 

I think he's definitely in, but not first ballot.

 

Bill Simmons had a great article a few weeks back talking about how the HOF process should be overhauled, and that there should be different tiers of the HOF. Your Babe Ruths, Hank Aarons and Johnny Benches of the world would be on the top floor, while fringe guys like Don Sutton would go on the bottom floor.

Nor did I.

 

 

 

I put as much stock into "adjusted numbers" as I do the weather forecast. That is statistical noise. His numbers are what they are. Should we adjust the single-season Home Run Record to about 129, because that is probably what Ruth's 60 bombs in the 20's would adjust to.

 

Lou was a nice player, a very good player, however, IMHO Biggio had the much better career. I'm not dogging the only guy to ever play in an All-Star game with a jersey bought at a souvenir stand and a number drawn on the back with a marker. Love that....

 

Comparing adjusted numbers to the weather forecast would tell me that you are not in tune with how these numbers are calculated.

 

Many folks will recognize that Ruth's 60 is MUCH more impressive than Bonds (and I'm not even thinking about steroids). I think I read that Ruth had more HRs than about half the teams in MLB that year. So what's the more impressive feat?

 

I'll stick with Lou.

Comparing adjusted numbers to the weather forecast would tell me that you are not in tune with how these numbers are calculated.

 

Many folks will recognize that Ruth's 60 is MUCH more impressive than Bonds (and I'm not even thinking about steroids). I think I read that Ruth had more HRs than about half the teams in MLB that year. So what's the more impressive feat?

 

I'll stick with Lou.

 

A. There is no way you (nor anyone else) could convince me that "adjusting numbers" to equate era is an exact science. Forecasting weather isn't an exact science either. Don't seem analogous to you?

 

B. I agree. However, we seem to use Bonds' 73 as the record? Isn't that silly and old fashioned?

 

C. He is all yours. Give me Biggio and I'll roll the dice.

I think he's definitely in, but not first ballot.

 

Bill Simmons had a great article a few weeks back talking about how the HOF process should be overhauled, and that there should be different tiers of the HOF. Your Babe Ruths, Hank Aarons and Johnny Benches of the world would be on the top floor, while fringe guys like Don Sutton would go on the bottom floor.

This is exactly my point.

 

I do not have an objection with him getting into the Hall, but to have his name in the same breath as Ruth, Mays, etc. is not correct. I do not see how anyone could think so. These are the ones that should be 1st balloters.

Yeah, him Benito Santiago and B J Surhoff came in the league around the same time and were curiosities in the fact that they were catchers that could steal bases--something you didn't see very often at the time.

He also used to leadoff....Biggio has been a versatile player and has changed his role in MLB, which not many can say they have.

 

He came up as a catcher, than transitioned to infield and has been a absolute professional, his entire career. Does he have the range of Whitaker, No....Does he have the arm strength of Morgan, probably not from the hole....Does he have the HR totals of Kent, No....What Biggio does have, is he's not one dimensional.

 

Hits for average, solid defensively, drives in runs, has power, speed early in career, excellent understanding of strikezone, hits a lot of 2B's, hit by pitch and he appears to be a great teammate....which is sometimes missing in the big show. Plus, he a Astros lifer.

A. There is no way you (nor anyone else) could convince me that "adjusting numbers" to equate era is an exact science. Forecasting weather isn't an exact science either. Don't seem analogous to you?

 

.

 

Not at all.

 

If you're putting Biggio in the HOF, then you are saying he's better than Lou Whitaker. What are you basing that on? Subjectivity? Numbers and adjustments remove as much subjectivity as possible so that you can get an idea of how Lou compared to Biggio using EQUAL measurements. How is that like weather forecasting?

 

Why would you not use equal measurements when you're deciding is a player was equal to or better than another?

He also used to leadoff....Biggio has been a versatile player and has changed his role in MLB, which not many can say they have.

 

He came up as a catcher, than transitioned to infield and has been a absolute professional, his entire career. Does he have the range of Whitaker, No....Does he have the arm strength of Morgan, probably not from the hole....Does he have the HR totals of Kent, No....What Biggio does have, is he's not one dimensional.

 

Hits for average, solid defensively, drives in runs, has power, speed early in career, excellent understanding of strikezone, hits a lot of 2B's, hit by pitch and he appears to be a great teammate....which is sometimes missing in the big show. Plus, he a Astros lifer.

 

I would argue Lou was better defensively, hit better , for more power, AND played for one team.