Biggio...first ballot HoFer?

cbbryan · June 14, 2007

Biggio is a HOFer. I don't know if he will get in first year or not.

I always thought Ryno would get in first ballot after Ozzie Smith did, but obviously Ryno didn't.

Rob · June 14, 2007

will and should are two different questions. IMO, with all the talk about how 500 is no longer a lock to the HOF, 3000 should not lock him into being a first ballot, but should lock him into the hall of fame.

all this talk about 'great all time' is a little far fetched. Roberto Alomar had a higher career OPS+ then Biggio, as did Lou Whittacker. Barry Larkin had a higher career OPS+ at a more difficult position (aside from the three years at catcher). take away a couple of devestating year long injuries, and Paul Molitor has 3,000 hits. are any of them HOF'ers? first ballot HOF'ers? no way.

Ummm... Molitor is in the HoF. And while Whittaker got almost no support, his numbers are HoF worthy, as are Robbie Alomar's and Barry Larkin's.

jjgman21 · June 14, 2007

I think he is probably a top 5 all time 2nd baseman.

Hmmm....

1) Eddie Collins
2) Ryno
3) Rogers Hornsby
4) Napoleon Lajoie
5) Biggio or ....hate to say it Joe Morgan

black Americans might take issue with someone missing from that list, as might fans of the Detroit Tigers. Yankee fans might also, but who really gives a rat's tail about them.

jjgman21 · June 14, 2007

will and should are two different questions. IMO, with all the talk about how 500 is no longer a lock to the HOF, 3000 should not lock him into being a first ballot, but should lock him into the hall of fame.

all this talk about 'great all time' is a little far fetched. Roberto Alomar had a higher career OPS+ then Biggio, as did Lou Whittacker. Barry Larkin had a higher career OPS+ at a more difficult position (aside from the three years at catcher). take away a couple of devestating year long injuries, and Paul Molitor has 3,000 hits. are any of them HOF'ers? first ballot HOF'ers? no way.

Ummm... Molitor is in the HoF. And while Whittaker got almost no support, his numbers are HoF worthy, as are Robbie Alomar's and Barry Larkin's.

sorry about that brainfart, but I think my point stands. you start letting guys with 115ish OPS+ in, and it very quickly becomes the Hall of Very Good. you start letting 115ish OPS+ guys in on the first ballot, and it quickly becomes the Hall of Solid Ballplayers.

OleMissCub · June 14, 2007

I think he is probably a top 5 all time 2nd baseman.

Hmmm....

1) Eddie Collins
2) Ryno
3) Rogers Hornsby
4) Napoleon Lajoie
5) Biggio or ....hate to say it Joe Morgan

black Americans might take issue with someone missing from that list, as might fans of the Detroit Tigers. Yankee fans might also, but who really gives a rat's tail about them.

Dang, you're on to my covert racism....thus why I didn't have Joe Morgan higher. :)

Jackie Robinson was a great player but the numbers aren't even close to him being a top 5 great at that position compared to the others I listed. I understand he lost years to the war and a few years in the Negro leagues, but calculating that into an equation just doesn't work. Otherwise we'd still have Ty Cobb as the all time hit leader due to his years lost in WWI or with Ted Williams being top 3 in homers if he hadn't lost years in WWII and Korea.

By the Tiger I assume you mean Whitaker, who'd I'd have in the top 10, but he's not better than Collins, Lajoie, Hornsby, Ryno, or Morgan.

The Yankee I'd take you to be talking about Lazerri? He didn't even have 2000 hits in 14 seasons.

Rob · June 14, 2007

I think he is probably a top 5 all time 2nd baseman.

Hmmm....

1) Eddie Collins
2) Ryno
3) Rogers Hornsby
4) Napoleon Lajoie
5) Biggio or ....hate to say it Joe Morgan

black Americans might take issue with someone missing from that list, as might fans of the Detroit Tigers. Yankee fans might also, but who really gives a rat's tail about them.

Dang, you're on to my covert racism....thus why I didn't have Joe Morgan higher. :)

Jackie Robinson was a great player but the numbers aren't even close to him being a top 5 great at that position compared to the others I listed. I understand he lost years to the war and a few years in the Negro leagues, but calculating that into an equation just doesn't work. Otherwise we'd still have Ty Cobb as the all time hit leader due to his years lost in WWI or with Ted Williams being top 3 in homers if he hadn't lost years in WWII and Korea.

By the Tiger I assume you mean Whitaker, who'd I'd have in the top 10, but he's not better than Collins, Lajoie, Hornsby, Ryno, or Morgan.

The Yankee I'd take you to be talking about Lazerri? He didn't even have 2000 hits in 14 seasons.

Don't forget, Jackie may have played more at 2B than any other position, but he only played about half his games there. Is he a 2B? Yeah... but it's kinda unfair to give him credit for his career numbers at a skill position when he wasn't playing there for a good chunk of his career.

And yeah, I do say the same thing when talking about Ernie Banks while making greatest SS arguments.

thedaymen · June 14, 2007

sorry about that brainfart, but I think my point stands. you start letting guys with 115ish OPS+ in, and it very quickly becomes the Hall of Very Good. you start letting 115ish OPS+ guys in on the first ballot, and it quickly becomes the Hall of Solid Ballplayers.

I sort of already think its the Hall of Very Good. Biggio was an average player for a large chunk of his career. When he played CF he was one of the worst defensive center fielders in the game...and he played it for a couple of seasons.

Someone said he was one of the top 50 players of all time...I could probably name 50 players who's career I would rather have from people that are playing right now.

jjgman21 · June 14, 2007

I think he is probably a top 5 all time 2nd baseman.

Hmmm....

1) Eddie Collins
2) Ryno
3) Rogers Hornsby
4) Napoleon Lajoie
5) Biggio or ....hate to say it Joe Morgan

black Americans might take issue with someone missing from that list, as might fans of the Detroit Tigers. Yankee fans might also, but who really gives a rat's tail about them.

Dang, you're on to my covert racism....thus why I didn't have Joe Morgan higher. :)

Jackie Robinson was a great player but the numbers aren't even close to him being a top 5 great at that position compared to the others I listed. I understand he lost years to the war and a few years in the Negro leagues, but calculating that into an equation just doesn't work. Otherwise we'd still have Ty Cobb as the all time hit leader due to his years lost in WWI or with Ted Williams being top 3 in homers if he hadn't lost years in WWII and Korea.

By the Tiger I assume you mean Whitaker, who'd I'd have in the top 10, but he's not better than Collins, Lajoie, Hornsby, Ryno, or Morgan.

The Yankee I'd take you to be talking about Lazerri? He didn't even have 2000 hits in 14 seasons.

Don't forget, Jackie may have played more at 2B than any other position, but he only played about half his games there. Is he a 2B? Yeah... but it's kinda unfair to give him credit for his career numbers at a skill position when he wasn't playing there for a good chunk of his career.

And yeah, I do say the same thing when talking about Ernie Banks while making greatest SS arguments.

Jackie Robinson may have only played a little over half his career at second, but the years 48-52 when he played second almost exclusively, was one of the most dominant stretches any second baseman has ever had.

why is it strictly a counting numbers game when discussing who was the greatest ever and thus deserving of the HOF? under that rational, let's throw Sandy Koufax out. the analogies of Cobb and Williams are not applicable whatsoever. we are not talking about who is at the head of the leaderboards, we are talking about greastest ever. not being able to break into the big leagues until the age 28 is somehow supposed to detract from Robinson's greatness? give me a break.

the Tiger is Charlie Galagher, who had a career OPS+ of 124 and played 2206 games at second.

it may be blasphemous around here, but the greatest second basemen ever were

Collins

Lajoie

Hornsby

Galagher

Morgan

in no particular order.

OleMissCub · June 14, 2007

the Tiger is Charlie Galagher, who had a career OPS+ of 124 and played 2206 games at second.

Holy crap how'd I forget Charlie Gehringer. I'm a Ty Cobb junkie and I forgot Gehringer who was a protege of Cobb's in the late 20's when Cobb was player-manager of the Tigers.

why is it strictly a counting numbers game when discussing who was the greatest ever and thus deserving of the HOF? under that rational, let's throw Sandy Koufax out. the analogies of Cobb and Williams are not applicable whatsoever. we are not talking about who is at the head of the leaderboards, we are talking about greastest ever. not being able to break into the big leagues until the age 28 is somehow supposed to detract from Robinson's greatness? give me a break.

I'll concede that point. The Koufax example was a good one. Robinson's stats if inflated to a 17-19 year career would be among the best ever based purely on statistics. He was a great player, especially considering the crap he had to put up with.

dalgreen · June 14, 2007

sorry about that brainfart, but I think my point stands. you start letting guys with 115ish OPS+ in, and it very quickly becomes the Hall of Very Good. you start letting 115ish OPS+ guys in on the first ballot, and it quickly becomes the Hall of Solid Ballplayers.

I sort of already think its the Hall of Very Good. Biggio was an average player for a large chunk of his career. When he played CF he was one of the worst defensive center fielders in the game...and he played it for a couple of seasons.

Someone said he was one of the top 50 players of all time...I could probably name 50 players who's career I would rather have from people that are playing right now.

It is the Hall of the Very Good. The Hall of Fame should be for the greatest of the great, and not for those who were just very good or great. Basically, if there's debate then they shouldn't get in. But since it's the Hall of the Very Good a lot of players in the Hall have been elected. I think it should be a bigger deal when people are selected into the Hall than what it is now when it's a big deal when no one is selected. Why is it now considered showing disrespect to players if they don't get selected to the Hall of Fame but are still considered very good?

dalgreen · June 14, 2007

Craig Biggio is without a doubt a first-ballot hall of famer. If you look at his stats overall you will come out with that decision, once you factor in the value created in a smallpark (The Astrodome) his value shoots up through the roof and you're possibly looking at a top 50 player in the history of the game of baseball.

:shock:

I agree that Biggio should be elected to the HOF, but could you explain why the Astrodome is a small park?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/limajo01.shtml

Not the only thing! But seriously it was consistently one of the best pitchers parks in baseball when he played in it.

Gotcha. I thought you were calling the Astrodome a small park from a hitter's standpoint. I remember back in the day fly balls went to die out in the outfield with the power alleys being 396' before they brought the fences in. Even then it wasn't easy to hit balls out.

Outshined_One · June 14, 2007

Here's a fun exercise, go to the National Baseball HOF website and look at all of the second basemen inducted who played most of their careers after 1945. Here's the list:

That's it. Some comments...

-Carew spent the first 8 years of his career at 2B, then the last 7 at 1B/DH. Robinson's best stretch was during the five years he spent at second, but he played much of his career elsewhere around the diamond. It's a bit tough to classify both as 2Bs compared to some of the guys on this list who spent the overwhelming majority of their careers at 2B.

-The two players above aside, what an underwhelming list. Mazeroski was a joke of a selection while Nellie Fox was a bit of a head-scratcher. Schoendienst is a name I'm unfamiliar with, ditto Doerr, so I can't comment on either. However, Doerr's offensive numbers compare pretty well to Sandberg. I wonder how his defense compared?

After a cursory evaluation of players from this era and the ones on the above list, Biggio is a lock. His numbers slot in pretty well with Doerr and Sandberg, plus there are enough other positive factors in his favor to see him get elected. Frankly, he deserves it.

However, the more fun question is, what other 2Bs from this era have a shot at getting in? Here are some possibilities:

Robbie Alomar

Jeff Kent

Lou Whitaker

...ouch. Whitaker was a really underrated 2B, though. In spite of the lack of accolades (save for AL ROY), he put up some darn good numbers.

Rob · June 14, 2007

Bobby Grich needs to be in the Hall too.

jjgman21 · June 14, 2007

Schoendienst is a name I'm unfamiliar with,

that's because he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame whatsoever. just like Maz. no hit, good glove, one famous play = HOF by vets committee...until it came to be Ron Santo's turn when lots of hit, lots of glove and a career of class suddenly wasn't good enough.

OleMissCub · June 14, 2007

that's because he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame whatsoever. just like Maz. no hit, good glove, one famous play = HOF by vets committee...until it came to be Ron Santo's turn when lots of hit, lots of glove and a career of class suddenly wasn't good enough.

Looking at Ronnie's numbers and considering the pitching dominated era in which he played, it's a complete travesty he isn't in.

OleMissCub · June 15, 2007

Robbie Alomar

I personally think he should get in. Career .300 hitter, 2700 hits, near 500 sb's, GREAT glove. As for the voters, he might not because he's an ass and the spitting incident.

Jeff Kent

No. 2200 hits in 16 seasons is puny in this era for an "offensive force". He's only got 350 hr too. As for the voters, he IS an ass, so it's unlikely they'll put him.

Personally, I think a person's character shouldn't be a negative, but can be a positive, if that makes any sense.

Lou Whitaker

If Morgan is in, then Whitaker should too. He played 3 less seasons than Morgan did and only has about 150 hits and 24 homers less than Joe, and his career BA is higher. Morgan does have a substantially higher OPS though.

jjgman21 · June 15, 2007

that's because he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame whatsoever. just like Maz. no hit, good glove, one famous play = HOF by vets committee...until it came to be Ron Santo's turn when lots of hit, lots of glove and a career of class suddenly wasn't good enough.

Looking at Ronnie's numbers and considering the pitching dominated era in which he played, it's a complete travesty he isn't in.

OPS+ normalizes stats for park and league effects (in other words, it gives a decent basis of comparison across generations). I completely agree with you on Ronnie, but Jeff Kent has an equal OPS+ over a longer career and at a position where offense is more of a premium, although with average to below average defense. with everything in the balance, it's pretty hard to say Santo should be in, then turn around and say Kent shouldn't be.

OleMissCub · June 15, 2007

that's because he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame whatsoever. just like Maz. no hit, good glove, one famous play = HOF by vets committee...until it came to be Ron Santo's turn when lots of hit, lots of glove and a career of class suddenly wasn't good enough.

Looking at Ronnie's numbers and considering the pitching dominated era in which he played, it's a complete travesty he isn't in.

OPS+ normalizes stats for park and league effects (in other words, it gives a decent basis of comparison across generations). I completely agree with you on Ronnie, but Jeff Kent has an equal OPS+ over a longer career and at a position where offense is more of a premium, although with average to below average defense. with everything in the balance, it's pretty hard to say Santo should be in, then turn around and say Kent shouldn't be.

Good point. Looking again at their stats, they are nearly identical at this point:

Santo: 342 HR, 2254 hits, 125 OPS

Kent: 354 HR, 2247 hits, 125 OPS

I'm not a stat head, so maybe you can explain to me how OPS gives equivalence between their ERA's. Santo absolutely played in a less powerful era and hitter friendly era.

I don't know, Kent's numbers for a player who played in this era just don't scream HOF at me. But 342 homers for a person who played in the 60's does scream HOF. Ronnie also was a much more slick fielder.

imb · June 15, 2007

that's because he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame whatsoever. just like Maz. no hit, good glove, one famous play = HOF by vets committee...until it came to be Ron Santo's turn when lots of hit, lots of glove and a career of class suddenly wasn't good enough.

Looking at Ronnie's numbers and considering the pitching dominated era in which he played, it's a complete travesty he isn't in.

OPS+ normalizes stats for park and league effects (in other words, it gives a decent basis of comparison across generations). I completely agree with you on Ronnie, but Jeff Kent has an equal OPS+ over a longer career and at a position where offense is more of a premium, although with average to below average defense. with everything in the balance, it's pretty hard to say Santo should be in, then turn around and say Kent shouldn't be.

Good point. Looking again at their stats, they are nearly identical at this point:

Santo: 342 HR, 2254 hits, 125 OPS
Kent: 354 HR, 2247 hits, 125 OPS

I'm not a stat head, so maybe you can explain to me how OPS gives equivalence between their ERA's. Santo absolutely played in a less powerful era and hitter friendly era.

I don't know, Kent's numbers for a player who played in this era just don't scream HOF at me. But 342 homers for a person who played in the 60's does scream HOF. Ronnie also was a much more slick fielder.

Maybe you can LOOK SOMETHING UP FOR YOURSELF?

just kidding

OPS+ is OPS adjusted for the park and the league in which the player played, but not for fielding position. An OPS+ of 100 is defined to be the league average. An OPS+ of 150 or more is excellent, signifying that the player had a 50% higher OPS than average, adjusted for park.

June 15, 2007

he's 16 hits away. why to people keep saying 'if he makes it to 3000?'

or why would it matter? This just shows you how stupid the BBWAA is. 2984 is not first ballot but 3000 is? Idiotic. If anything Biggio should get more votes if he says "God, I suck" and hangs them up tomorrow.

June 15, 2007

that's because he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame whatsoever. just like Maz. no hit, good glove, one famous play = HOF by vets committee...until it came to be Ron Santo's turn when lots of hit, lots of glove and a career of class suddenly wasn't good enough.

Looking at Ronnie's numbers and considering the pitching dominated era in which he played, it's a complete travesty he isn't in.

OPS+ normalizes stats for park and league effects (in other words, it gives a decent basis of comparison across generations). I completely agree with you on Ronnie, but Jeff Kent has an equal OPS+ over a longer career and at a position where offense is more of a premium, although with average to below average defense. with everything in the balance, it's pretty hard to say Santo should be in, then turn around and say Kent shouldn't be.

Good point. Looking again at their stats, they are nearly identical at this point:

Santo: 342 HR, 2254 hits, 125 OPS
Kent: 354 HR, 2247 hits, 125 OPS

I'm not a stat head, so maybe you can explain to me how OPS gives equivalence between their ERA's. Santo absolutely played in a less powerful era and hitter friendly era.

I don't know, Kent's numbers for a player who played in this era just don't scream HOF at me. But 342 homers for a person who played in the 60's does scream HOF. Ronnie also was a much more slick fielder.

use win shares

OleMissCub · June 15, 2007

OPS+ is OPS adjusted for the park and the league in which the player played, but not for fielding position. An OPS+ of 100 is defined to be the league average. An OPS+ of 150 or more is excellent, signifying that the player had a 50% higher OPS than average, adjusted for park.

Interesting. So Kent and Santo have identical OPS+. That's still hard to believe that 350 homers back then took the same effort as it is does now.

imb · June 15, 2007

OPS+ is OPS adjusted for the park and the league in which the player played, but not for fielding position. An OPS+ of 100 is defined to be the league average. An OPS+ of 150 or more is excellent, signifying that the player had a 50% higher OPS than average, adjusted for park.

Interesting. So Kent and Santo have identical OPS+. That's still hard to believe that 350 homers back then took the same effort as it is does now.

It's not just about home runs, though.

Kent has 517 doubles in 7786 at-bats. Santo had 365 doubles in 8143 at-bats.

OleMissCub · June 15, 2007

Kent has 517 doubles in 7786 at-bats. Santo had 365 doubles in 8143 at-bats.

Good point.

I don't know, Jeff Kent just doesn't seem like a hall of famer to me.

New question on HOF. I was reading in GQ this month about Sheffield. What about his HOF chances?

.297 BA, 472 HR, 2457 hits, 1544 RBI, 145 OPS+

Seems like one to me, although his jerky persona and some BALKO stuff is probably going to hurt him big time.

sunnydoo · June 15, 2007

New question on HOF. I was reading in GQ this month about Sheffield. What about his HOF chances?

.297 BA, 472 HR, 2457 hits, 1544 RBI, 145 OPS+

Seems like one to me, although his jerky persona and some BALKO stuff is probably going to hurt him big time.

Shef is in easy, if he can get to 500 HRs. The RBI total he has is 39th All time and rapidly climbing. He also has an outside shot at 3k hits if he can stay healthy and play for 4 or 5 more years.

He really isnt tied up in the Balco stuff. He has always relied on being a line drive hitter and his HR totals have never really jumped way up after he stabilized at around age 25. If anything, they are extremely consistent. He also has played in some of the worst pitching parks all time. The Fish Tank and Big Blue Heaven are murderous on hitters and he spent the better part of a decade in them.

He is an MVP, 9 time AS, and won 5 Silver Sluggers. He might already have punched his ticket too but several injuries have slowed him down.

And i dont think he is a jerk. He is really misunderstood. He is not as articulate as he thinks he is and doesnt get his point over in the right way which comes off as racist or arrogant. He just needs a translator like Hunter did for him last week so that we can relate to what the hell he is trying to say.

He also is fairly tempermental and says some things he probably shouldnt at heated times, but he always has apologized for them the next day and accepted the responsibility for it, unlike some others who just let it slide.

But he wouldnt be the first or the head jerk even to be in the HoF. Ty Cobb has both those distinctions all rolled up forever and ever.

Biggio...first ballot HoFer?

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs