Craig Biggio, 1st ballot?

[STRIKE3]

Why Ruth would have more than 714 if playing today:

 

Technology

Better conditioning (how many nutritionists were there in 1927?)

Today's ballparks much easier to go yard in.

 

Why he would not:

 

Specialty pitchers

Blacks/Latinos now making the pitching better

If willing to make the lifestyle changes, I still don't think Ruth would eclipse the 400 mark, if he played from the '90's on....I equate his swing, to a Fielder, Greg Luzinski, Don Baylor, Dick Allen and they all were guys who had short, compact but powerful swings, each with a problem of pulling off the ball away and being susceptible, to the pitch in on the hands.

 

Scouting reports would make it much easier and the middle relievers, combined with getting pitched around, would hurt Ruth...just my speculation.

[UKMustangFan]

Why?

 

 

Because he had better offensive output in almost every single category, and according to his Fielding %, was a better defensive player.

[UKMustangFan]

Can you have an opinion if #'s are better or not? I mean, wouldn't it be fact?

 

Sure you can have an opinion either way. Seeing as I wasn't around to watch Morgan play, I can only go off numbers. You can't go wrong with either player.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

Whiel you can never eliminate subjective measures, normalizing the numbers can only help make an accurate evaluation, correct?

 

No. It is some human's opinion (based on some sort of logarithmic nonsense) of how numbers "should be" adjusted based on factors. Right? I mean a human in today's world wrote the program on how to compare stats from different eras...right?

 

Again, I say it is statistical noise. The numbers are what they are. I find WAY MORE value in comparing players to their peers. Again, I think Biggio was a better player compared to his peers than Whitaker was to his. How many times have you heard guys (Grande loves the phrase) say a guy should have spent time as the best player in the game at his position to be in the Hall. IMHO Whitaker was never the best 2B in baseball when he played. Very good player...yes.

 

You can argue until you are blue in the face, many of us believe Biggio should be in, you believe Whitaker was better therefore he should be in first (don't hold your breath...I'd miss you), and time will prove who the Baseball Writers agree with.

[AverageJoesGym]

Without looking it up, I'm guessing the GG winner was often Bobby Grich who was very, very good. You cannot use it as a comparison IMO .

 

I'll repeat my belief that you will not find any baseball experts who think Biggio was a better 2nd baseman than Lou Whitaker.

 

So it is okay to use projected numbers, that are at best just a theoretical total dreamed up by a stat geek to justify Whitaker as a better hitter but the fact that Biggio's fielding percentage is equal to Whitaker's and the fact that he won more Gold Gloves can't be taken into account. Last time I checked the Hall of Fame was decided by what a player actually accomplished ON the field not in a computer formula. The fact is Biggio put up numbers that are much better than Whitaker's and he did it at 3 different positions. I really like Sweet Lou but I've got no problem at all in saying that Biggio accomplished enough more than him to belong in the Hall instead of Lou.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

So it is okay to use projected numbers, that are at best just a theoretical total dreamed up by a stat geek to justify Whitaker as a better hitter but the fact that Biggio's fielding percentage is equal to Whitaker's and the fact that he won more Gold Gloves can't be taken into account. Last time I checked the Hall of Fame was decided by what a player actually accomplished ON the field not in a computer formula. The fact is Biggio put up numbers that are much better than Whitaker's and he did it at 3 different positions. I really like Sweet Lou but I've got no problem at all in saying that Biggio accomplished enough more than him to belong in the Hall instead of Lou.

 

:thumb: :thumb:

[STRIKE3]

Alright, here is Whitaker's stats, compared with Biggio....

 

Whitaker

19yrs

2,390 – games

8,570 – AB’s

2,369 – Hits

420 – 2B’s

65 – 3B’s

244 – HR’s

1,084 – RBI

143 – SB’s

75 – caught stealing (fewest)

1,197 – BB’s

1,099 – K’s

.363 – OBP%

189 – E’s (fewest)

.984 – fielding %

4,771 – putouts

6,653 – assists

 

Biggio

20yrs

2,800 – games

10,707 – AB’s

1,827 – Runs

3,017 – Hits

661 – 2B’s

55 – 3B’s

287 – HR’s

1,160 – RBI

413 – SB’s

123 – Caught Stealing

1,155 –BB’s

1,715 – K’s

.365 – OBP%

198 – E’s

.985 – fielding %

7,086 – putouts

5,596 – assists

[cshs81]

Because he had better offensive output in almost every single category, and according to his Fielding %, was a better defensive player.

 

That's it? So voting for the HOF is as simple as looking at numbers? No context required?

[UKMustangFan]

That's it? So voting for the HOF is as simple as looking at numbers? No context required?

 

 

As I said, I never saw Morgan play, so the only way I can compare the two is their numbers. Both are worthy of the HOF, both on a first ballot basis IMO, but if I'm to chose between the two, I'll take Biggio.

[cshs81]

No. It is some human's opinion (based on some sort of logarithmic nonsense) of how numbers "should be" adjusted based on factors. Right? I mean a human in today's world wrote the program on how to compare stats from different eras...right?

 

Again, I say it is statistical noise. The numbers are what they are. I find WAY MORE value in comparing players to their peers. Again, I think Biggio was a better player compared to his peers than Whitaker was to his. How many times have you heard guys (Grande loves the phrase) say a guy should have spent time as the best player in the game at his position to be in the Hall. IMHO Whitaker was never the best 2B in baseball when he played. Very good player...yes.

 

You can argue until you are blue in the face, many of us believe Biggio should be in, you believe Whitaker was better therefore he should be in first (don't hold your breath...I'd miss you), and time will prove who the Baseball Writers agree with.

 

Maybe Biggio had less talented peers? I don't buy the argument of "being best among his peers" simply for that reason. I may be the best looking guy in my "group" but that sure as hell doesn't mean I was better-looking than the 2nd best-looking guy who lost out to George Clooney. Should we penalize Brad Pitt?

 

Your cannot simply discount the comparative numbers. Its asinine to do so. You cannot say that Yaz had an OK year when he hit .301 because today's leaders hit .350. Its apples and oranges. You HAVE to take everything into account. To not do that is simply inexplicable .

[cshs81]

As I said, I never saw Morgan play, so the only way I can compare the two is their numbers. Both are worthy of the HOF, both on a first ballot basis IMO, but if I'm to chose between the two, I'll take Biggio.

 

Surely you see the fallacy in your argument.

 

So you've got Vinny Testaverde in front of Montana ? 5k more yards passing?

[STRIKE3]

That's it? So voting for the HOF is as simple as looking at numbers? No context required?

What context, are you referring to? Baseball is a game full of stats and it's how others, are measured against their peers, on a performance basis.

 

Obviously we can't measure, effort, hustle, desire, leadership, so accomplishments are the only way. Otherwise, it's just a debate on who is better, with no result....I'm also, not a big stats guy but for the HOF, not sure the criteria, if not basing off stats.

[cshs81]

What context, are you referring to? Baseball is a game full of stats and it's how others, are measured against their peers, on a performance basis.

 

Obviously we can't measure, effort, hustle, desire, leadership, so accomplishments are the only way. Otherwise, it's just a debate on who is better, with no result....I'm also, not a big stats guy but for the HOF, not sure the criteria, if not basing off stats.

 

Of course stats have to be used. However, in order to use them properly and to make an educated decision, you must first understand the stats and the context.

 

If you played in the 20s/30s or the 90s/today, you played in a much more offensive-friendly environment. Ballparks, pitchers, etc.

 

So to compare a guy from the 60s stats to a guy from either of the two aforementioned eras by simply looking at stats would be a mistake. Surely, the number of home runs being hit today bears that point out, correct?

 

Stats are important. They're simply not equal.

[cshs81]

No. It is some human's opinion (based on some sort of logarithmic nonsense) of how numbers "should be" adjusted based on factors. Right?

 

I would invite you and others to do some research into how these are derived. Opinion rarely comes into it. Logic, yes.

[cshs81]

So it is okay to use projected numbers, that are at best just a theoretical total dreamed up by a stat geek to justify Whitaker as a better hitter but the fact that Biggio's fielding percentage is equal to Whitaker's and the fact that he won more Gold Gloves can't be taken into account. Last time I checked the Hall of Fame was decided by what a player actually accomplished ON the field not in a computer formula. The fact is Biggio put up numbers that are much better than Whitaker's and he did it at 3 different positions. I really like Sweet Lou but I've got no problem at all in saying that Biggio accomplished enough more than him to belong in the Hall instead of Lou.

 

I would invite you as well as HSSRB and others to actually look into how these are derived before simply writing them off. To assume that there was some predetermined outcome desired (Whitaker over Biggio for example) BEFORE the concept was developed is naive on your part.

 

Surely, you realize the error in using fielding% as an tool for comparing two players, right?

 

So you, too, think that all stats are equal regardless of the era or the circumstances involved? You must based on the above. If so, you think that Biggio is better than Joe Morgan, correct?

 

3 different positions is an intangible that has to be included. I'm taking intangibles out of the argument and trying to use logical commonly-accepted thinking. Apparently, I'm alone in this venture.