Rank Craig Biggio
by Shamus on Jun 29, 2007 12:28 AM EDT
Email
PrintWhere does Biggio rank among all-time 2nd basemen? Who was better? Who comes close? Who are the hall of famers at 2nd that he is clearly better than? Does Biggio's position changes put him in a different position going into the hall and did his position changes help or hurt his position among the all-time great players?
Where would you put Biggio among the all-time greats for position players? I am sure that many of you know that Bill James said he thought Biggio was the greatest player in baseball for 3(or so) years in a row. And he said Biggio had better intangibles in his game than most anyone ever(HBP/never GDP/top level baserunning/as well as other things).
Opinions would be appreciated.
100 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
all-time great
that said, he's been just plain awful this year and it's an embarrassment the way they've handled this 3000 hit thing. how can you keep running a leadoff hitter out there with a .270 OBP? joe sheahan said it best: the achievement is not simply hanging around long enough to get that 3000th hit--it's still being good enough to deserve the playing time. biggio is a sure HoFer if he retires with only 2900 hits, so i'm pretty turned off by the way he and the astros have made 3000 such a priority.
maybe now that he has it they can go back to giving the playing time to somebody who might actually deserve it.
Without looking at the stats
And what are Kent's stats looking like. He could be creeping up there.
Interesting ...
Alomar
Other early posts
I am not taking anything away from Biggio
After all I did say if I had a vote, I would put him in there.
Nevertheless, like I said before Biggio never scream HOFer. So anyway, I looked at his stats and you say to yourself well he did very well but he wasn't great. Then all of a sudden you look at hits and it said 3000 hits. Then you say to yourself wow 3000 hits and he's a HOFer.
It's almost like you put him in the HOF because of that. Basically you make the bench mark # like 3000 hits manipulate your thinking and as a result you have to put him in the HOF.
Again, I would put him in there and I like the guy but I have some doubt if he is a sure fire HOF.
by NYYLover1000 on Jun 29, 2007 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Undeniably great from 1992-1999
Now, 1999 was quite a few years ago now and Biggio hasn't been the same player since then. Almost fitting that he hit his milestone the same day as Frank Thomas -- another 90s monster who has been hobbled in the 00s.
I'd rate Biggio well behind Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie and Morgan. He's likely in the Gehringer range. A bit ahead of Sandberg & Alomar due to career length. I don't know about Kent. As a late bloomer who sustained his peak longer than anyone thought he could he's a tough guy to rank.
Alomar vs. Biggio?
IMO they are not even close. Sure Alomar had about 4 less seasons but I care more about peak and "greatness" than longevity. Alomar was one of the best defensive 2B ever to go with a bat as good as some of the best (including Biggio).
Alomar-Biggio-Sandberg
Here's the WS Charts (adjusted for 1994-5):
CB-38-38-35-33*-32-32-31-26-25-20-20-20-19-...
RA-37-35 -34-31 -30-25-23-22-21-20-19-19-19*...
RS-38-37 -34-33 -28-28-22-20-20-19-18-17-14...
They're all HOF-ers, but even if you don't adjust 1994 & 1995 for season length there's a strong case that Biggio was just as good as Alomar & Sandberg at their peaks.
Biggio could field pretty well himself (though not as flashy) and stole tons of bases at a very high percentage. Alomar ran a bit better, but its no big advantage.
Yuck... the stars...
no
I'm not going to tell you Alomar had more power than Kent, please don't tell me those guys could field as well as Alomar.
..running
Alomar & Sandberg were clearly better fielders than Biggio. That's how they catch up in the WARP3 table versus the WS table. WARP3 rates fielding more than WS.
I didn't say anything at all about Kent other than I have trouble slotting him. :-)
sorry
Alomar-Biggio-Sandberg -- WARP3 version
Here's the WARP3 tables (going with s for 1994-5 this time):
CB-14.2s-13.2 -12.4s-10.2-09.2-8.7-7.4-7.4-6.2-5.6
RA-12.5 -11.7s-11.7 -11.6-10.7-9.9-9.9-9.3-7.8-7.0
RS-12.0 -11.6 -10.6 -09.9-09.7-9.6-8.6-7.5-6.7-6.4
Biggio's best years still the best, though Alomar likely passes him with wins in years 4-10. Sandberg catches up in years 5-10 as well, though I'm not sure if it makes up for the advantage in Biggio's top years.
So, the media certainly didn't hype Biggio that much until he was old, past his prime, and reaching milestones, but he does indeed hold up well when comparing with the great 2B's of his day.
I don't know but Biggio never scream HOFer
Top 4 I guess
Biggio
I'm not sure Biggio did anything to distinguish himself from these players. Obviously Alomar was the best of the group in his peak. But I'd have to say all three are fairly close. And if that's the case how can you put him ahead of Morgan and others if he clearly can't outpace guys in his own era?
I don't think Kent makes the HOF...
who
No he wasn't
Jeff Kent's .980
Lg range factor 4.35
Jeff Kent's 4.78
Jeff Kent has been a solidly above average defensive player for his career. Wrong!
range factor
Jeff Kent was originally regarded as a butcher but made serious improvements where he was solid. In the last few years he was a butcher again but so is Biggio.
My thing is Alomar was as good with the bat and was a genius in the field. Alomar is the guy that should be considered with the Joe Morgan's etc. I do think the others deserve the HOF.
Rabge factor is NOT
Rabge factor? lol
Range factor is subjective. Of course there are more than one way of determining range so maybe the one you are referring to is different?
ps: even if it's a total don't you think the park and the pitchers would affect this?
pps: coming from the guy that says "WATCH THE GAME" why not rely on what you saw? Alomar is so far better defensively anyone arguing otherwise is being either A) Foolish B) Drunk C) Jeff Kent's mother
Okay
Fielding percentage is subjective as to what you
Range % is subjective to the balls that you get to and the balls that pass you. The guy has never been in consideration for a gold glove.
Oddly
is it even worth making.....
I hate the idea of Kent in the Hall of Fame, but the numbers seem to say otherwise, so Barry should be fine. That is, if Barry makes the Hall....
by bleedjaxblue on Jun 29, 2007 4:22 AM EDT up reply actions
What Lincecum joke?
Bonds will go in the Hall,
I'm not saying that it's the way it should be, but he's a first ballot HOFer no matter how much casejud disapproves...
WHAT A JOKE!
Let's put it this way.
Before I get chastised...
You sum it up very well JT12340.
To me the HOF is for great players. Craig Biggio, while a very good player at best, was not a great period. That is why I called him somewhat of a compiler for the simple fact that he was a very good player who had 3000 hits.
Same with Don Sutton, he was a not a great pitcher, no way. Nevertheless, he was a good pitcher that all of a sudden had 300 wins and 3000 k's.
by NYYLover1000 on Jun 29, 2007 2:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Check the historical abstract
He's definately top 10 in my book, but I'm more of a peak guy really. I probably have Alomar slightly ahead of him in my book, as well as a non-HOFer in Bobby Grich. On the other hand, I have him well ahead of hall-of-famers like Nellie Fox and Rod Carew.
Without going into too much thought, here's how I probably have it:
- Lajoie
- Collins
- Morgan
- Hornsby
- Robinson
- Grich
- Alomar
- Biggio / Sandberg (right around the same level for me)
Kent
Alomar maybe
PA's OPS RNG FPC
Sandberg 9282 114 5.1 .989
Biggio 12248 113 4.8 .984
Alomar 10400 116 4.7 .984
The "Ops" is adjusted OPS, which meens relative to league and park played in soo...as you can see. Regardless of your "impression" we have 3 godd defensive 2b who all were around the same as offensive players...very, very good hitters for the positon...duifference being one was good longer than the other, another longer than the other, then Ryne Sandberg. Career value they are 1) Biggio 2) Alomar 3) Sandberg.
By The4 Way. I hate to let facts get in the way of peoples IDIOTIC idea about the HOF... sorry, it is a sore spot for me... but Jeff kent has a lifetime adjusted OPS of 125 with firelding numbers exactly the same as the other 3 greats. He has been better than all of them!
hahaha
Alomar was hands down the best defensive 2B in the last 20 years. By far.
He may have been
casejud
listen:
If either of us played 2B for a team that had:
Brandon Webb
Fausto Carmona
Derek Lowe
Chien Ming Wang
Kevin Brown
we would have a ton of plays made and more putouts than those three combined.
But you insist on these flawed stats. Can you honestly tell me you feel either 2B is even close to Alomar defensively? Or are you just using numbers to prove a point?
Well
hmm
I don't need to prove anything to you. There is no way to do this. Chances relies on the pitchers & stadium.
I will tell you something - I watched a lot of all of them. Kent was solid. So was Biggio. Alomar was unreal.
Okay
it's more than that
Also, the Toronto pitching was more of a fly-ball style. Just check what happens with the Yankees. Jeter isn't very good but his defensive numbers are not fair to him.
As for Kent,
Defensively he''s on par because he didn't have to cover as much ground nor have to attempt to make the spectacular play, IMO.
His bat is very good. His career took off in the juiced ball era. The main reason why I don't respect it is because of the saturated homerun totals across baseball. He is not the complete hitter that Frank Thomas is/was, the complete baseball player that Ken Griffey or Barry Bonds were/was...
He is a good player, but his numbers just appear inflated to me. Other criteria I think of when judging HOFers or potential HOFers: MVP awards, Silver Slugger awards, Gold Glove awards, amout of times in the top 5 of MVP voting, All-Star game appearances, World Series Rings, etc...
I don't feel he has had a HOF career. His numbers are deserving, but I'd still rank him after Biggio. Biggio, however, still takes a back seat to Alomar and Sandberg...
If you want to use Bill James and his stats, etc as an example, use his HOF Standards and HOF Moniter as well. They both suggest he barely gets in.
You can't control the amount of chances you get
It's a losing dispute, it's like using minor league BA as a tool for comparison. Kent and Biggio both played the majority of their careers in better stadiums than Alomar. You remember, he started in the ancient colluseim that the Padres played in before Qualcom, and then at the garbage stadium the Indians had before Jacobs Field, and in Toronto as well... Another difference with Alomar and the said above players including Kent, he was a catalyst for several World Series teams, both winners and losers....
Alomar
I've seen so much of him, Kent, and Biggio and there is no comparison. If someone is using numbers they are just admitting they didn't watch them play IMO.
I do believe all three are HOF.
You are just
+1
Sandberg did it before the juiced ball era was
I Hope
So what your saying is that any of these players
Alomar in my mind is still the best of the 3.
I do realize
I think you're misinterpretting what we're saying.
The numbers are scaled...
And injuries do count. Part of being a great player is staying healthy.
Amen brother
casejud
He was real good
I live in Seattle and we have a flashy Shortstop who has great quickness, reactions and, arm... he gets mentioned as having great range but, the stats dont back it up and, it has NOTHING to do with SAFECO FIELD or the Mariner pitching staff (NoCM Wang's here!) and everything to do with POSITIONING and ANTICIPATION which is what you do BEFORE the ball is hit.
By the way, very interesting, how you use Jeter as a guy who is slighted in his range stats even though he has CM Wang throwing behind him once every five days :)
Its been fun! Gnight!
Completely disagree
I completely disagree with this statement, particularly on defense and I believe the HOF votes will back that up by making Biggio wait for induction.
Sandberg has always underrated his entire career. Let's not forget, Biggio and Alomar played a majority of their career on turf. Sandberg played on Wrigley Field, which Mark Grace has said several times is the worst infield in the majors. Setting the errorless streak while playing 2B at Wrigley Field is ridiculous.
Forgetting defense for a second, before Alomar, before Kent, before Biggio, it was Sandberg that established 2B as an offensive position. Sandberg was hitting 40 homers, stealing 30+ bases, driving in 100 runs, hitting 19 triples back when it was unheard of for a 2B to have this type of offensive impact. This thread is comparing these 2B as if they are from the same era and they CLEARLY are not in my mind.
Even more to the point
Sandberg won 9 gold gloves in a row. GG awards aren't the end all be all, but for a decade he was viewed as the best defensive 2B in the game. (Biggio 4, Alomar 10 - nonconsecutively, Kent 0)
7 silver slugger awards (Biggio 4. Alomar 4, Kent 4)
Top 10 in MVP 3 times - won in 1094 (Biggio 2, Alomar 5, Kent 4)
Top 10 in OPS 6 times - all positions (Biggio 1. Alomar 1, Kent 1)....this is astounding to me and shows how much of an impact Sandberg was. As good as of hitter as all these guys are, Sandberg was the only one that not only was an impact at his position but at ANY position
Top 10 in HR 5 times (Biggio 0, Alomar 0, Kent 1)
A case can be made for Alomar in my opinion because his game was alot different than Sandberg, but Kent and Biggio are not on the same level as Sandberg. Frankly, not even close.
You are completely MISTAKEN Mr. Bob
Ryno had a career slugging of .452 and the leagues was .404.
There is NO advantage in power for Ryne Sandberg and he didnt get on base more either.
Plus you dont even mention the difference in ballpark which shows, you dont care about being accurate.
It CERTAINLY is close offensively and the numbers read properly show Kent has been bvetter at the plate.
Sandberg has NEVER, EVER
How do you just explain away all of Jeff Kent's great seasons, shoot, even his MVP season was better than Ryno's. You are just being irrational about a player you really like and, thats cool but, lets call it what it is.
HOF voters are screwy too!
Do you think that on base peercentage and slugging percentage are esoteric and flawesd stats? No... well good because Sandbergs werent better than Biggios you fool!!! Biggio played a LOT longwer at a high level!!! ANYBODY who thinks Sandberg's value for his career is higher than Biggio just doesnt understand value! Sandberg's peak wasn't really better either. they were similar as players...Biggio played longer. I dont care what the screwy HOF voters say. They havent evn voted Burt Blyleven in yet who is one of the top 30 pitchers of All-Time.
The point we're all tryiing to make,
As for all your comparisons, I think you should do an individual research on each player, look at their stats from season to season. Alomar's is generally in the top 3 at his position for nearly a decade. Biggio is generally in the top 5.
Both Alomar and Biggio batted anywhere 1-3 in the lineup. They were similar players. Biggio had a slightly longer career, but that doesn't make him a better player. Longevity helps him in that aspect. If he doesn't play those extra 7 years, he doesn't make the HOF. Alomar and Sandberg were already considered HOFers by the time they were 32-33...
you are screwy dude
2Bs
3,000 hits and all the rest is a very impressive accomplishment, but almost as impressive is the ability to play (well) at three of the toughest positions on the diamond.
As for the question about historical 2Bs, why isn't anyone talking about Rod Carew? 3,000 hits, a .328 career hitter over 19 seasons, and some of the best bat control I ever saw (before Ichiro). Carew moved off of 2B later in his career, as did Biggs, but to me he was one of the most exciting ball players of his time.
Oh, and if you want to use a metric that compares across eras, Carew posted a career OPS of 131, just a shade under Morgan's 132 and safely ahead of guys like Alomar (116), Ryno (114), and Biggs (113).
If I had to rank HOF 2Bs, which is about as futile as ranking Miss Universe contestants on the basis of hotness, it would look something like this:
Hornsby
Collins
Robinson
Morgan
Carew
Ryno
Biggio
Sorry
And, I forgot Lajoie who obviously needs to be on that list, probably Top 3.
Thats okay
Carew
For people that didn't watch them field
Gold glove 1991 - 1996, 1997 - 2001 11 Gold Gloves
Kent:
Gold glove never 0 Gold Gloves
Biggio:
Gold glove 1994 - 1997 4 Gold Gloves
Alomar 11, Kent 0, Biggio 4
How about them apples?
NOTHING
sigh
look, robbie alomar was one of the most athletic, spectacular defensive 2Bs anybody has ever seen. everybody who watched him play agrees on this. he made plays that made you go, "Wow!" more than any other 2B. he was also a ridiculously smart ballplayer--he knew in which infields and against which fielders he could bunt for a base hit. he knew when to let a soft liner drop in front of him so he could turn two. he was a fantastic basestealer, swiping many bags at a high percentage. and he was a complete hitter who hit for high averages, walked frequently, and drove the ball for extra bases with regularity. in short, he was the perfect all-around player. i loved watching him, and so did everybody else.
now, the numbers say that he wasn't all that great as a fielder. there are two conclusions that could be drawn from this information:
1) he wasn't all that great as a fielder;
or
2) the numbers are wrong.
the onus is not on one group or the other to prove that the other camp is wrong. it's just a discrepancy we'll have to accept. it's nothing to get all worked up about, although i understand that's nigh impossible when casejud is involved.
one other thing
The numbers arent WRONG dude
You are free to believe whatever you want about Alomar's defense or anybody else for that matter. I was just dabbling in reality for a bit and people hate that when talking about fielding. its all about legend. try and convince me there was a better defensive CF than Ken Griffey Jr!
You be you and Ill be me okay?
sorry
by "the numbers are wrong" i merely was trying to capture the idea that the numbers are not an accurate reflection of alomar's true defensive value (which is how i should have said it in the first place). sorry for any confusion. obviously what you say is correct in that there are defensive numbers which are facts: he made this many putouts and assists in such and such a year, etc. i was referring to the "numbers" which purport to put a value on his defensive contributions, whether in terms of plays or runs or wins or whatever, on a basis that can be fairly compared with his peers.
but let's play a little game. you tell me which of these statements is a fact and which is an opinion:
- player A had a higher range factor than player B (or UZR, or defensive win shares, or fielding %, or whatever stat you like)
- player A was a better defender than player B
secondly, i think you are grossly misunderstanding my application of the word "worthless." i'm not sure whether that's an attempted straw man or just an over-hasty reading of my short post, but let's both agree that nobody has called robbie alomar worthless, or accused anybody else of calling him worthless.
one final point: would you please stop being so damn confrontational? i didn't even argue against a single thing you said and you are jumping all over me (with your trademark capital letters). i don't even disagree with you, but you are putting yourself across some great divide from me, and arguing until you are blue in the face, just because ... well, i don't know why. you cannot possibly be this disagreeable in real life--so why here?
Dont be so sensetive!
I dont know WHAT you meant on that "worthless" post. So, Im sorry. We both love Robbie. Sorry for rattling your cage.
- Fact
- Opinion
sorry
you can emphasize with capitals. plenty of people do it and it doesn't bother me. it's JUST that YOU in particular do it SO MUCH that i always feel like i'm being YELLED at when i read your posts. if i'm the only one who feels this way, i'll just stop complaining about it.
Haha
As far as my commenting on your "worthless" comment. IT WAS related to it. I just misunderstood... YES subjective doesnt meen worthless.
Funny that I didnt bring up the "term" subjective. It was one of those other dolts who thinks there is something subjective about assists+ putouts/ innings played+ range factor. It has its biases but, so do Homers, Batting average, practically every stat.
I said that GG wins are by, definition "subjective"..they are VOTED on for Christ's sake! Thats what subjective IS. they arent worthless but, to me they tell us a lot less than just a glance at a players defensive numbers.
hahaha
Quote: It was one of those other dolts who thinks there is something subjective about assists+ putouts/ innings played+ range factor.
That of course was me. I was arguing range factor is subjective. IT IS. What you are talking about IS NOT RANGE FACTOR. It's putouts.
RANGE FACTOR - this is where an observer watches the game and measures how many balls a player gets to WITHIN a certain range. There are other ways range factors are measured.
But you are calling me a dolt for saying range factor is subjective when in fact in all range factors there is a degree of subjectivity. Makes you sound rude and hmmm not so smart.
Casejud - When coming out with both guns firing make sure your pants are on first.
Good times
You are speaking of ZONE RATING which attempts to measure the amount of balls hit into a players's area. Alomar wasn't particularily great in either area, i believe.
Pants on!
and by the way
Best defensive Centerfielder of all time:
nah
I dont see it that way
You accept your discrepancy. To me there isnt one. His range was average which, meens very good bwecause an average big league 2b is very good.
LOL
There are about 3 or 4 different fielding statistics - which should show you that it's a flawed field right now.
Alomar
Apparently Peter saw him intentionally bunting balls foul during spring training or BP or something, and realized Alomar was doing it to get guys to come in a couple of steps after strike 1 so he could drive a hit past them.
Smart, smart player.
The real question is
Maybe casejud can give some statistical analysis on why Kent is a better or as good of a spitter as robbie too. That would be interesting, I'd think
I never ever said Kent was better
Alomar is surely the more effective spitter but, Kent's were more flashy loogies.
Biggio
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
