Craig Biggio, 1st ballot?

[AverageJoesGym]

Whitaker and Biggio, started 11 years apart....I hardly consider that an era.

 

They also played at the same time from 88-95. Not an insignifigant period of time.

[Jim Schue]

He may very well be, but I can't make a comparison outside of stats when I haven't seen both players.

 

That's ridiculous. There is video evidence you can consult which will tell you what you need to know about the greatest 2B ever.

 

I never saw Bill Russell play, does that mean all I have to measure him against Pat Ewing is stats?

[UKMustangFan]

That's ridiculous. There is video evidence you can consult which will tell you what you need to know about the greatest 2B ever.

 

I never saw Bill Russell play, does that mean all I have to measure him against Pat Ewing is stats?

 

 

I've never seen said video.

[cshs81]

No, Testaverde did that in 35 more games and its only one stat. Whitaker walked more and struck out less than Biggio but except for triples he pretty much dominates Whitaker across the board. Sure Testaverde threw for almost 5,000 yards more than Montana in 35 more games. He also completed 56.6% of his passes compared to Montana's 63.2%, he threw 270 TDs compared to Montana's 273 and threw 261 more interceptions to Montana's 139. Comparing Testaverde/Montana because of one stat is not a good comparison at all.

 

 

My point was that you are basing your support for one player simply off of stats without taking into account the different times they played.

[cshs81]

They also played at the same time from 88-95. Not an insignifigant period of time.

 

 

1. Whitaker was 38 in 1995(his last season) when Biggio was 29.

 

2. When did the offensive explosion start in MLB? Mid-90s? Late 90s? And its still going today. That , by itself, should be enough to make one question themselves for thinking that you can compare stats regardless of the years played.

 

3. Biggio made hay during the period that all of baseball took off in offense. If he had been the only one putting up bigger numbers then or , heck, even in the minority you can then say he did something special. Unfortunately, lots of guys put up numbers - bigger than Biggs did.

[cshs81]

Whitaker and Biggio, started 11 years apart....I hardly consider that an era.

 

You can't simply look at the 11 years. You have to take into consideration which years they actually played and when they were in their prime. Biggs has taken advantage of a period of time in MLB when offensive output is at a very high level as compared to other times including the 70s and 80s.

 

If you use 82-91 for Whitaker and 91 through last year for Biggio for years they put up big offensive numbers, you can see the difference in the times. The SLG% for baseball was almost 10% higher (not 10 % points but 10%) in Biggio's years than it was in Whitakers primary years.

 

That doesn't count in your book?

[STRIKE3]

You can't simply look at the 11 years. You have to take into consideration which years they actually played and when they were in their prime. Biggs has taken advantage of a period of time in MLB when offensive output is at a very high level as compared to other times including the 70s and 80s.

 

If you use 82-91 for Whitaker and 91 through last year for Biggio for years they put up big offensive numbers, you can see the difference in the times. The SLG% for baseball was almost 10% higher (not 10 % points but 10%) in Biggio's years than it was in Whitakers primary years.

 

That doesn't count in your book?

No, your naturally assuming a 10% increase, would be in Whitaker's stats, I assume and there could easily be a decline.....Same could be said for Biggio, of his stats either increasing or decreasing.

 

We all can speculate on what they could have been, would have been and should have been....but the stats exist and they are, what they are.

 

Defensive stats are solid, regardless and hitters adjust to the pitcher, ballparks and skill level, in which they are playing. I like Whitaker but stats say, he is a HOF player and when compared to Whitaker, Morgan and others....Biggio more than holds his own.

[cshs81]

No, your naturally assuming a 10% increase, would .

 

Incorrect. My point in using thet 10% number is to show that eras, even decades, are different and that , once again, you (collective you) cannot simply compare numbers and treat them as being equal.

 

I've asked and I'll ask again of everyone.

 

What are the inherent problems you see with the "computer geeks" who have determined how to adjust for different time frames?

[AverageJoesGym]

Incorrect. My point in using thet 10% number is to show that eras, even decades, are different and that , once again, you (collective you) cannot simply compare numbers and treat them as being equal.

 

I've asked and I'll ask again of everyone.

 

What are the inherent problems you see with the "computer geeks" who have determined how to adjust for different time frames?

 

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?

[STRIKE3]

Incorrect. My point in using thet 10% number is to show that eras, even decades, are different and that , once again, you (collective you) cannot simply compare numbers and treat them as being equal.

 

I've asked and I'll ask again of everyone.

 

What are the inherent problems you see with the "computer geeks" who have determined how to adjust for different time frames?

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.

 

Is Biggio a first ballot HOF, I believe so but it will depend on who is in the same class. I also stated, he's better than Whitaker and I would take Biggio, over Morgan. I also listed several other great 2B and if given a choice, I would take Trillio's arm, Cash's quickness, Sandberg's hitting, Biggio's toughness, Whitaker's attitude, Grich's size and Morgan's baserunning.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

What are the inherent problems you see with the "computer geeks" who have determined how to adjust for different time frames?

 

First off, it takes what we know as facts (the naked stats) and applies a man-made formula to it to try and create the impossible (IMHO) -- an accurate way to compare players of different eras. I know you fancy yourself a Sabermetric Guy and pray towards Bill James' birthplace twice a day, but while I find "Win Shares" to be a clever thing to look at, I don't make it a gospel.

 

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.

[Latch]

hssrb..I don't buy into the best at your position while you played philosiphy. Derek Jeter isn't the best SS on his team let alone during his era does that exclude him from the hall? If he gets in does that mean ARod who if he stays healthy will hit 800 HR's doesn't get in b/c he wasn't even good enough to play SS for 5 years b/c of Jeter? What about pitchers? Do we get one starter and one relief pitcher per generation? Or does every multiple Cy Young winner get in? I'm confused...

[STRIKE3]

hssrb..I don't buy into the best at your position while you played philosophy. Derek Jeter isn't the best SS on his team let alone during his era does that exclude him from the hall? If he gets in does that mean ARod who if he stays healthy will hit 800 HR's doesn't get in b/c he wasn't even good enough to play SS for 5 years b/c of Jeter? What about pitchers? Do we get one starter and one relief pitcher per generation? Or does every multiple Cy Young winner get in? I'm confused...

Are you saying, A-Rod is a better defensive SS than Jeter and who of his generation, would you consider better?

 

A-Rod and Jeter, will both enter the HOF.

[h.s.sportsrbest]

hssrb..I don't buy into the best at your position while you played philosiphy. Derek Jeter isn't the best SS on his team let alone during his era does that exclude him from the hall? If he gets in does that mean ARod who if he stays healthy will hit 800 HR's doesn't get in b/c he wasn't even good enough to play SS for 5 years b/c of Jeter? What about pitchers? Do we get one starter and one relief pitcher per generation? Or does every multiple Cy Young winner get in? I'm confused...

 

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.

[Latch]

Are you saying, A-Rod is a better defensive SS than Jeter and who of his generation, would you consider better?

 

A-Rod and Jeter, will both enter the HOF.

 

Yes... Arod will have better numbers than Jeter

 

I know, but when/if ARod moves back to SS that makes Jeter not the best of his generation and if I'm reading hssrb's post right only the best of the era can make it. Tejada is pretty good and he has no chance in the best of the era argument.