POLL: Craig Biggio and the Hall of Fame
Posted by Andy on August 17, 2010
Craig Biggio, a lifetime Astro and member of the 3,000-hit club, is out next Hall of Fame debate subject.
Once known as one of the fastest catchers around, Biggio was moved to second base in 1992, his 5th season. Amazingly, he made another position move, this time to center field, in 2003. Biggio is the only player in baseball history to play as many as 130 games each at catcher, second base, and in the outfield.
Biggio was a 7-time All-Star, 4-time Gold Glove winner, and a 5-time Silver Slugger winner.
Click through to discuss his credentials and vote in the poll.
Getting right to it...
For Craig Biggio in the Hall of Fame:
- 20th all-time in hits
- 5th all-time in doubles
- Other high rankings include runs (13th), times on base (17th), total bases (31st) and of course hit by pitch (2nd).
- Despite playing at positions not usually associated with high offense, he led the league a few times in runs, doubles, and stolen bases.
- He's 77th career in Wins Above Replacement for position players. At 66.2, he's ahead of folks like Ernie Banks, Willie McCovey, and Ryne Sandberg, and near Eddie Murray and Duke Snider. Biggio didn't just do it on longevity, either, as he led the NL in WAR in 1997 and had 3 other top-10 seasonal finishes.
- His similarity scores are surprising:
Robin Yount (836) *, Joe Morgan (779) *, Paul Molitor (778) *, Roberto Alomar (773), Cal Ripken (761) *, Brooks Robinson (739) *, Lou Whitaker (739), George Brett (736) *, Ryne Sandberg (723) *, Charlie Gehringer (716) *
That's 8 Hall of Famers, probably 9 come the next vote. The actual Sim Scores are quite low, probably because Biggio changed positions a lot. - From 1993 to 1999, Biggio led all of MLB in runs scored and was in the top 25 in OPS+ (tied with Ken Caminiti, David Justice, and Alex Rodriguez.) He was first in OPS+ among second baseman. (OPS+ numbers are minimum 2000 plate appearances across those 7 seasons.)
- His HOF Monitor and HOF Standards are both above average for HOFers.
- He scored 23 runs in 40 post-season games
Against Craig Biggio in the Hall of Fame:
- Biggio really wasn't all that good in his last 8 seasons (2000-2007). In fact, despite his high peak from 1993 to 1999 mentioned above, he finished with a career OPS+ of 111, thanks to an OPS+ around 95 over those last 8 seasons. Now 95 is certainly not terrible (especially for a CF/2B) but his career totals benefit from his being able to hang on for a long time as a slightly below-average player.
- His ability to hang on is also indicated by his rankings within the 3,000 hit club. Among those 27 players, Biggio has the 3rd-lowest batting average (ahead of just Ripken and Henderson) and 2nd-lowest OPS+ (ahead of just Brock).
- Despite getting hit by pitch a huge number of times, Biggio's OBP was just .363. That's because he walked at a low rate, just over 9% of the time. Here are the top 20 players all-time in terms of most plate appearances when walking no more than 10% of the time. There are some great names on that list, but there are some who stick out as overrated with the bat, too, such as Robinson, Brock, and Ripken. Moreover, note that just about every other guy on that list (other than Biggio) either struck out even less than they walked or hit for a lot of power. Biggio did neither.
- Biggio was not a good defender at any position. He racked up -26 fielding runs as a catcher in 4+ seasons and then -34 fielding runs in his time as a second baseman. He was also negative in CF and LF too and was overall a -70 fielding runs defender for his career.
- His overall postseason numbers aren't good, with just a line of .234/.295/.323 over 40 games. A .295 OBP in the playoffs is not going to get it done. He also doesn't have any World Series wins to his credit.
August 17th, 2010 at 6:46 am
I remember when this guy came up with Houston. He looked like he was 17 years old. And, he was pretty darn close to it - starting his major league career full season at 23. His number were very similar to Yount's - both were not huge power hitters, but they were consistent throughout their entire career. OBP was a little low (for Yount as well), but both were great in the clubhouse, good with the media, and kept a very low profile (i.e. remember Wade Boggs and his sex addiction?). The fact that his career batting average is only .281, I personally think this will not have a negative affect on his first-round induction. Ripken's .274, although he was the ironman for his consecutive games-played streak, didn't seem to matter when he was up for induction. Biggio was a classy player, remained with one organization for his entire career (rare now), and retired from baseball gracefully (minus prehaps his very last season). He was a doubles machine, had speed and pop in his bat - well rounded palyer if you ask me - and a first-round inductee.
August 17th, 2010 at 6:52 am
"some who stick out as overrated with the bat, too, such as Robinson, Brock, and Ripken"
What Robinson do you mean?
August 17th, 2010 at 7:21 am
The one on the list.
August 17th, 2010 at 7:50 am
I think that the 3000 hits makes Biggio a shoo-in. Maybe he won't get first ballot, due to that certain contingent of BBWAA voters who don't vote for someone in their first year, and also maybe due to Alomar not getting elected this past year in his first try, but it's pretty certain Biggio will be elected.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Unlike the Jeff Kent discussion, I don't feel a deep analysis is warranted with Biggio. Your "in favor" list above makes the case for Biggio as a first or second year election IMO. HOF monitor of 169 would predict his election easily.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:30 am
I SO wanted Biggio to pass Jennings in career hit-by-pitch. Even more fun, fans could have raised a buzz that Selig should follow him around waiting for the big event to happen! Hey, he was trailing behind Bonds, who was pursuing a record barely 30 years old, and the commish didn't even want to be there. Bidge was and is seen as a "clean" player, and the HBP record was almost a century old! But no....
Dammit, Bidge, why weren't you leaning in on a few?
August 17th, 2010 at 8:39 am
3000 hits, no tie to PEDs...he's in.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Biggio is what my personal all-time favorie, Cookie Rojas, would have ben had Cookie been a little sharper at the plate.
He'll probably not be a first-round inductee; but he will make it, and deservedly so.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Biggio was one of those guys where I knew he was playing but didn't realize he was anything special until about 12 years into his career. I'm not sure if that was a Houston Astros thing or what but there it is.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:27 am
It's an easy yes. Also working in his favor are his identification with one team and his reputation as a hard-working professional and as one of baseball's good guys. I was not crazy about the chase for 3,000, which may have cost the Astros a playoff spot in his last season, but that was a decision made by both sides.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:41 am
It seemed ridiculous at the time and in a way it still does, but I remember a Bill James article on how Biggio - in his prime - was more valuable than Griffey in his prime. It was based on all the little things that Biggio did well - namely get on base via the HBP, avoid double plays and score an inordinate amount of runs. The article was in James' revised Baseball Abstract from circa 2000.
I don't really see any reason why Biggio would not be a HOF'er, based on the previous posts.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:07 am
#11 Brett,
I remember the Bill James article, and it did seem a bit ridiculous, but it illustrated how good Biggio really was. Some of the negatives listed above have to be weighed against his playing his home games in the Astrodome for the first 11 full seasons of his career. Playing in a neutral ballpark in his prime, would have increased his gray ink scores as well as his BA and OBP. He is an easy HOF'amer.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:26 am
A .363 OBP for a 2b playing a good portion if his career in the Astrodome is something that goes on the plus side, not the minus side 🙂
August 17th, 2010 at 10:44 am
He has a -34 fielding runs in his time as a second baseman yet he also won 4 Gold Gloves. I never understood all the Bill James win stuff anyway. People look at the plays he made and judged him on that. I have no prob with him getting to the HOF.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:54 am
One thing that stuck out to me was his 9.6 WAR season. It's the only year where he has a major positive contribution from his fielding runs. Looks like a bit of an outlier. If you assume that he really was around his average for that year, it takes away about 2 WAR. Still pretty clearly deserving, and 3000 hits means he'll have no issues from the voters, IMO.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Interesting that Walker who was just as good a player by WAR, had a 400+ comment thread (and nearly 100 by the time I read it at lunchtime), and Biggio is pretty much ho hum. Player value is similar. Walker was *much* better offensively. Biggio gets a lot of mileage out of those 3000 hits. BBs get no respect.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:09 am
"thanks to an OPS+ around 95 over those last 8 seasons... not terrible (especially for a CF/2B)...hang(ing) on for a long time as a slightly below-average player."
But is an OPS+ of 95 actually below-average for either a starting CF or a starting 2B? I guess when you take defense into account, Biggio probably wasn't providing as much of it as his peers at those positions...
August 17th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Biggio is seen as clean (Walker is too), there's no issue with stadium-inflated numbers, his raw numbers in addition to 3000 hit club appear more impressive, and the narrative of staying with a single team helps too. BB's get less respect than they should, but it also seems that the WAR overrates BB's a bit as well.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:18 am
@16
Middle infielders and corner outfielders are an apples and oranges type of comparison. Although WAR makes some attempt to balance the positions, I still think its a good idea to treat these types of comparisons as separate. Biggio is to be compared against Kent, Alomar, Sandberg, etc. Its just not that controversial to think he's an easy pick for the HOF. Walker is being compared against tons of great corner OF-ers. His case involves extreme park effects, OF fielding contributions, career length issues, in-season durability issues, etc.
And too much is being made of Biggio's walk rate. It is true that he is a rare case of a player whose walk rate got markedly worse later in his career, but in his prime his walk rate was fine. Plus, its not like those HBP's didn't happen.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:41 am
The comments seem to go in proportion to "borderline-ness". Slam dunks like Biggio and Griffey don't get many comments, but guys closer to the line like Walker and Kent get a lot more.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Biggio's career OBP may be modest, but that's because it was brought down by several bad years at the end. In his prime, he was a .400 OBP guy. From '94-'00, he batted .300/.397/.464, including four seasons of .300+ BA and .400+ OBP (in two of those seasons he slugged .500 as well). From '92 to '01, he walked in 11.4% of his plate appearances. Through 2001, his career OBP was .381.
The last six years of his career got him to 3,000 hits and made him a lock Hall of Famer by traditional standards, but they didn't make him a greater player. But if he'd retired after 2001, he would probably only be considered a borderliner at best.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Totally random and off topic, but if Bonds had retired before 2001, he'd probably be MORE of a HOF candidate!
August 17th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
AFAIK, Brooks Robinson is generally thought of as a great defensive, fair offensive player. That's over-rated?
August 17th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
"...no tie to PEDs...he's in."
"Biggio is seen as clean...."
I don't aim to recklessly blaspheme a guy, but I would question both those statements. Not saying he’s plain dirty, but I think we’re naïve to suggest anyone from (roughly) 1985-2002 is clean simply on the lack of direct evidence, Mitchell, or anecdotals. Biggio may not be mentioned in Mitchell, but multiple teammates were, and those teammates were present for the years in which Biggio’s career really began to blossom. And dozens of Biggio’s teammates are suspicious to me.
(And I don't wear my tin-foil hat 24/7 - I'm just sayin'.)
We want Biggio to be clean, just as we want Pujols, Ripken, Gwynn, Puckett, etc., and other love-able guys, but we can’t just assume anything anymore. We love our baseball and we love our numbers, but to assume a guy is clean is to be inverted on this issue. There was simply very little motivation for guys to be clean then, and today's social/legal stigma was non-existent.
And this isn’t about “who looks muscular” either. Biggio did bulk up, but even without that, we have to look at the numbers, his teammates, the era, the money factor – how is anyone presumed clean? How does anyone escape the PED effect?
It sucks, since I love the numbers, but none of these guys is known to be clean.
As far as the HOF, Biggio should be in. Even with my (now) very jaded cynicism, he was very, very good, maybe great.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
#23, I think Robinson's reputation among general baseball fans (not us stat-aware folks) has generally crept better and better to where he's thought of as almost interchangeable with Mike Schmidt and George Brett. Ludicrous, of course, but I hear stuff like that.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
CB may have decreased from his peak around 2001, but he really only had 3 terrible seasons (2002 and his last 2). He didn't really "compile" as much as the anti-HOF sentiments in the post suggest.
Everyone "compiles" (i.e. stinks) for a couple seasons at the end of their careers, and yes in this case, it IS OK to do it just because everyone else does.
I know people hate it but I love 3000 Hits. Also, the Guy played at least a full season at 4 different positions, that's cool. Biggio for HOF.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Michael E. Sullivan,
I was thinking the same thing about Larry Walker. It's as if Enron Field/Minute Maid park didn't inflate batters' numbers or that Coors field is the only park that inflates offensive numbers.
Biggio was very underrated from '89-99 basically because of a lot of little things he did well like getting on base, getting hit by pitch, playing a key position, hitting for average, stealing bases, playing good defense, and not grounding into double plays. And he was also playing in one of the worst hitter's parks in baseball.
What helped Biggio is playing in Enron/Minute Maid from 2000-2007 which actually covered up his decline phase. As Andy pointed out he only had an ops+96 from 2000-2007. You can go and check his road batting average splits from '05-07 which are pretty terrible: .235, .178, and .203.
There's no way he gets to 3000 hits if he was still playing in the Astrodome from 2000-2007. And if he was still playing in the Astrodome his lifetime average would have probably dropped to the .270's range. I think he would have had a really tough time getting into the HOF without Enron/Minute Maid. So his WAR probably would have been about the same with the Astrodome, but the public perception of him as a player wouldn't be as good.
So he's underrated during the first part of his career and he's overrated during the second part. The same thing happened to Will Clark and the same kind of thing happened to Rusty Staub in a smaller sampling. Staub's Astros' years are greatly underrated and his Tiger decline phase years are overrated.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
The doubles do it for me. 3,000 hits also. He scored a lot. He played four positions. He didn't 'roid up (at least as far as we know). Stolen bases, taters, etc. There a lot of HOFers who don't belong, Biggio does!
August 17th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I always thought Biggio was a shoo-in.
He's a comfortable fit, in the Hall Monitor and Hall Standards categories, his WAR ranking is appropriately high, and his most similar peers are almost all Hall members, soon to be nine of 10. If those 10 players are the most similar to Biggio, in the scope of their careers, that would pretty much say he's in, to me.
Zack, I also hate the damning-by-coincidence that takes place (he was a teammate of so-and-so, who was tainted, so he must be tainted, too). Even Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn would be guilty by association, if that's the standard. At this point, no one isn't.
Can we at least agree on innocent until proven guilty? Even in the case of illegally-leaked details from Mitchell's list, those outed players are now known to have tested positive. We have proof. We know (even if we're not supposed to).
And players are still getting caught, so we can't say it arbitrarily ended in 2002. Maybe they are just getting better at not getting caught.
Biggio is "seen" as a stand-up guy, who won several of baseball's humanitarian awards. I don't recall that he was ever suspended for inappropriate actions.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Innocent until proven guilty, of course. But I think we have to be prepared for the possibility of finding out, only after they've been elected to the Hall, that some of the guys we've presumed to be "clean" really weren't. That's what's risky about using "clean vs. unclean" as a HOF criterion, when we still don't have the full picture. It's going to look extremely foolish if two players with equal HOF credentials receive different treatment, only for as to find out later that they both used.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Andy@20. I get that thread size is proportional to borderlineness. What I don't get is how in the world Larry Walker is borderline while Biggio is a slam dunk.
Walker was far more valuable offensively, and he was also an excellent fielder (albeit at a less valuable position than any of Biggio's). Biggio played more games and had a longer career, but seems to have provided roughly equivalent career value.
Biggio is a slam dunk with the voters (and apparently with much of the readership here) because he has 3000 hits, not because he added more value. In my reckoning, Walker is slightly ahead of Biggio, because he has better peak value, and about the same total, despite many fewer PAs.
This is why I say: BBs still get no respect.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
As #19 pointed out, I don't think anyone would compare Biggio to a corner outfielder, which have a higher threshold to cross to get in.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
DavidJ,
There's always the dreaded asterisk for all Hall inductees who play a significant part of their careers after 1985.
Just kidding...I think.
How do you get beyond either blanket acceptance, or blanket condemnation? I don't think it's fair to cheat (and knowingly and willfully break the law...), and be rewarded.
But the modern position player has already received so many legal artificial boosts -- in the form of field/equipment/training conditions, smaller parks, livelier baseballs, smaller strike zones, etc., you name it -- the numbers are already skewed enough that we have to artificially compensate in the way we judge players from different eras.
At least this was one advantage the pitchers were also able to utilize, to some degree.
And, Lord knows, the Hall voters (and the Veterans Committee) have already looked foolish enough on their own, from time-to-time. Even without PEDs to consider.
Is there a rule that says once in, you can't be removed? In cases of a player doing what might be deemed irreparable (or, at least considerable) harm to the image of the game?
I mean, military men get demotions, elected officials sometimes get booted out of office, no-hitters get erased from the record books. In college football, teams have to surrender trophies and other considerations when found guilty of major infractions.
I understand privacy concerns, in regards any testing program. But I also have some rights, if I'm being scammed as a consumer.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
@31
It doesn't have anything to do with hits. Its 2B vs RF. Historically, its much harder to find great players that played in the middle of the infield as opposed to those who played in the corner of the outfield. Its also much harder to find longer careers at 2B than it is in RF. And the durability issues.
Saying this has anything to do with BB's is a bit odd. This is one of the more sabermetric-friendly forums here.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Jeff, I agree with most of what you're saying, and I don't have any easy answers; I was just trying to highlight part of the problem, which is that presuming that certain guys were "clean" and "played the game the right way" has the potential to blow up in our faces. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but I'm not going to give guys bonus points because I think they didn't use.
Personally, I'm closer to the blanket-acceptance position than the blanket-condemnation one, but I recognize that there's no perfect solution.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
No doubt about it, first ballot HOFer in my book. He was a team guy, played the game the right way, and led by example. He also played everywhere on the field, including catcher. Oh yeah, more than 3,000 hits too.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
As I've stated before, it's OK to compile for 2-3 years at below to near-average, but once you dip way below average and/or compile for too long, the taste left in the mouth is often too hard to overcome in the mind of the voters (i.e. John, Simmons, Kaat, and perhaps even Whitaker). Biggio basically compiled at below to near-average for a few years, hit a big milestone, and hung it up when he needed to and should have.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
On PEDs, I also am in favor of innocent until proven guilty. A phrase that beings, "I don't recklessly aim to blaspheme a guy, but..." may wind up doing just that in the minds of some. It would be virtually impossible for a player to definitively prove that he was free of PEDs as it would be for any of us to definitively prove we were free of any such use.
On this issue, we know that there are many more players who took some form of PEDs than are currently documented by reliable sources. By the same token, I'm not prepared to throw a blanket over all players between 1985 and our current day. Players will need to be judged by the public based on the evidence. Like any known reasonable justice system, despite best efforts, some who are deemed innocent will not be and some who are innocent will be condemned. Given the human condition, I am willing to judge based on reliable documented evidence (including confession of use) knowing that new evidence may arrive at any time. I don't see what reasonable actions are left to us otherwise.
In terms of HOF eligibility, we know that McGwire and A-rod have confessed to use. We also have documentation on Bonds, Sheffield, Tejada, Manny, Clemens and several others. We also have the mountain of unsubstantiated rumors by questionable, or even unknown, sources which does not constitute proof.
Of course, once reliable evidence is provided of PED use a range of reactions from complete disqualification from the HOF to a subjective assessment as to whether PED use is the primary reason for HOF-like performance is possible. Who knows where this will all lead in the end.
As far as I am aware, there is no reliable documentation of PED use for Biggio and I am willing to proceed on that evidence until something new arrives.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
He was definitely hurt by the Astrodome. Looking at his neutralized stats, he gains in nearly every category. He would be .294/.379/.452 with 3330 hits, 1882 runs, 729 doubles, 311 home runs, 472 steals.
There's not much argument here, I know some people aren't fans of accumulation but somebody who's in the top 20 all time in so many categories can't not be in the hall.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Re: Biggio being "clean"
Remember the days when Biggio wouldn't have been considered a "clean" player because of the pine tar on his batting helmet and the general Pig-Pen-esque uniform he usually sported by the 6th inning.......
August 17th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
"It doesn't have anything to do with hits. Its 2B vs RF. Historically, its much harder to find great players that played in the middle of the infield as opposed to those who played in the corner of the outfield. Its also much harder to find longer careers at 2B than it is in RF. And the durability issues. "
My point is that even after you take 2B vs. RF and all the durability issues into account, Walker appears to have been worth about as much.
There are lots more corner outfielders who bat as well as Biggio than there are 2Bs.
When I say Walker appears to have added roughly equivalent value, I am not talking about his bat alone. By bat alone, Walker is so far ahead of Biggio they aren't even in the same discussion. The reason they are *close* is that Biggio played more valuable positions, and did so for a lot longer (in terms of PAs).
I'm not missing the fact that Biggio played C, 2B and CF and not corner outfield. If he put up the same stats in corner outfield, he'd be an average player and not even close to a hall of famer. I would say his position accounts for at least 1/3 of his career value.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Who are the morons who vote "No, he won't get in?"
Biggio would have been a sure-fire HOF even without 3000 hits. All that did was make sure he'll be a first balloter.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Since Biggio's HOF qualifications seem to be rather obvious to almost everyone, I'd like to take the discussion in a different direction. Sometimes I hear criticism of long-career/ non-"inner circle" candidates that goes like this:
"All {Player X} did was play an extremely long period of time, to pile up his career totals, and {Player X} only had a few REALLY great years. I've heard contrarians on local sports-talk shows (in this case Boston-area) say this about Carlton Fisk, Al Kaline, and (yes) Yaz.
Apparently their line of thinking is that only players on the Walter Johnson/ Babe Ruth/ Ted Williams/ Willie Mays level should be in the HOF. They are ignorant of the reality that this is simply N_O_T how the HOF works; if it were, there would be maybe thirty inductees (at most, and someone elected only every three/four years. This contrarian argument fails to distinguish between the Harold Baines/ Rusty Staub candidates, who are very good but rarely great, and Craig Biggio, who had both a very long career AND was great for a good part of his career.
As Bill James said eons ago, there is no(eligible) player with Yaz's qualifications who is not in the HOF;I'd say the same for Biggio.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I polled sportswriters before the 2003 season and asked what they thought of the HOF chances of Bagwell and Biggio. With Bagwell, the consensus was "Likely Hall-of-Famer. May need a few more good seasons to seal the deal." With Biggio, the consensus was "Get real. No chance."
Today, I wouldn't be surprised if Bagwell had a harder time getting in than Biggio.
Remember that sportswriters aren't number geeks. They need something specific to hang their hat on and Biggio did that with 3,000 hits. Even with the most doubles of any RH-hitter in baseball history, he doesn't get in without 3,000 hits. Biggio knew what he was doing by hanging around for that.
If you want a pre-cursor to how Biggio stacks up in HOF voting, watch Roberto Alomar. If Alomar gets in, no way can they leave Biggio out. If you want a pre-cursor to how Bagwell stacks up, watch Fred McGriff. If McGriff is left out, I don't think Bagwell gets in.
August 17th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I recall someone on TV mentioning that Biggio is also considered one of the greatest Texas high school football players of all-time. Nothing to do with this, but cool and shows is athleticism.
August 17th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
"No, he doesn't deserve it and he'll never get in 3% (19 votes)
No, he doesn't deserve it but he'll get enough votes one day anyway 10% (61 votes) "
13% are crazy
good to know
August 17th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
No brainer. The yang to Alomar's ying. Who else would you want besides Robbie hitting in the top of your lineup playing a gold glove 2nd base defense during that era at that high of a level? He had plenty of dominant years considering his position and his spot in the batting order to convince me, 3,000 hits or not. The only thing that would prevent his admission would be if somehow he was involved in PEDs. Sadly, there weren't enough qualified HOF voters last time around to have seen Alomar play to induct him in first ballot. Hopefully, they don't make the same mistake again with Biggio.
August 17th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Alomar didn't play that long ago - there are a bunch of 15 yr olds as voters?
August 17th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
"Biggio would have been a sure-fire HOF even without 3000 hits."
No, Joe, without 3000 hits he has no chance.
He's not a slam-dunk WITH 3000 hits.
I agree with you he knew what he was doing, hanging around to get the 3000th hit, just like Smoltz and Schilling did to get 3000 strikeouts.
Each one of them knew without a doubt they had no chance without reaching those milestones.
For the first time, I believe, the BBWAA will be comparing players more to their peers than to those elected before them. We are in a time now where steriods and certain park effects have made it almost impossible to put Craig Biggio in the same context with Ryne Sandberg or Joe Morgan, and to what Todd Helton's numbers would have looked like in Kansas City.
Jon Heyman said one of the things he does when considering his votes is to look at a player at a different position, as he believes, as do I, a HOFer is a HOFer regardless of where he plays.
As a corner infielder or outfielder, or even a full time centerfielder, Craig Biggio is not a HOFer. The 3000 hits are impressive, but in itself are not good enough. He was a lousy defensive player and only had one 200 hit season.
He was an accumulator, not a dominator.
August 17th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
"No, Joe, without 3000 hits he has no chance.
He's not a slam-dunk WITH 3000 hits. "
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha
Mind boggling. Utterly mind boggling.
August 17th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
#44,
I was with you completely right up until the end. Obviously you are the one that polled the writers, but I think saying "no way" to Biggio without 3000 hits, you're exaggerating a bit. Hall voters also love narratives, and the fact both were lifers in one-uniform this will help both Biggio and Bagwell. They also both had some really good years after 2003. I do think Biggio will go in before Bags b/c of the 3000 nits, but I also think Bagwell will go in before or around the same time as the Crime Dog...all this is barring some steroid issue...and yes, anabolic steroids are worse than HGH.
August 17th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
As much as I respect Heyman's way of voting, I don't think all voters see it the same way. I think many do take position into consideration, maybe not too the distilled level that many statheads would like, but many do now. They should.
August 17th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Michael E Sullivan Says:
"I'm not missing the fact that Biggio played C, 2B and CF and not corner outfield. If he put up the same stats in corner outfield, he'd be an average player and not even close to a hall of famer. I would say his position accounts for at least 1/3 of his career value."
----------------------------------
That's everything though. Yes, if Larry Walker played 2B, he'd be in the HOF. If Rocky Colavito played 2B, he'd be in the HOF. If Ellis Burks played 2B, he'd be in the HOF. But they didn't. People like to have some positional balance in the HOF. You just can't load it up with corner guys. (I suppose you could, but I wouldn't).
August 17th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Biggio never finished above 4th in any year in the MVP voting. To me, that means that the MVP voters never considered him any better than the 4th best player in the league, let alone all of MLB. And these are some of the same voters as vote for the HOF. Biggio will probably eventually get in, but like someone said, Biggio was an accumulator not a dominator.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
[...] batting helmet and the general Pig-Pen-esque uniform he usually sported by the 6th inning. … bat pine tar – Google Blog Search Share and [...]
August 17th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
He's an overqualified hall of famer.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
It can't be everything, or you'd never put anybody in from corner outfield. There has to be some level of excellence that makes you a clear choice from LF. From this era, what outfielders do you put in before Walker? Bonds, Griffey,
I looked at list of who had the most WAR over 1980-2010 for anyone with 1000 games in any corner OF position and 6000 PAs. Walker is 6th. Looking at 2Bs over the same span, Biggio is 3rd. If you put in an even number from each position, they are in line at the same point.
The point is, Walker is neither Ellis Burks or Rocky Colavito. Both those guys are far, far, far down the list of outfielders. Walker and Edmonds are in the range of guys who are/were locks/first ballot.
Note, I voted in and in for Biggio, I agree 100% that he is a clear choice, 3000 hits or no. I'm just astounded that people here think Walker isn't. I'm not astounded that general fans think that. I'm astounded that a supposedly saber-friendly group has so many people who don't recognize Walker's value (or Edmonds for that matter).
August 17th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
3,000+ hits, 2nd in hits by pitch, no proof of steroid use...as of 8/17/10....he's in. So should his Astros teammate Jeff Bagwell.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:19 am
"Alomar didn't play that long ago - there are a bunch of 15 yr olds as voters?"
Apparently so, that's as logical a reason as any to why he wasn't inducted in.
"Biggio never finished above 4th in any year in the MVP voting. To me, that means that the MVP voters never considered him any better than the 4th best player in the league, let alone all of MLB. And these are some of the same voters as vote for the HOF. Biggio will probably eventually get in, but like someone said, Biggio was an accumulator not a dominator."
MVP voters also rarely consider players who bat towards the top of the lineup over sluggers. Without even checking, I'm going to take a wild crack and bet the farm that the 3 players that finished higher than Biggio the year he was picked 4th were sluggers? Boggs, Jeter, and Alomar are even better examples of players who received the same amount of love, or lack thereof, in the MVP voting who weren't sluggers.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:12 am
Kjell, Walker, Piazza and Bagwell, each with 40 + homers and more than 124 ribbies
How can you possibly keep a guy with 1800 + runs scored, 3000 + hits, 668 doubles, almost 300 homers, 414 stolen bases with a very good SB %, etc, etc, out of the HOF ?
August 18th, 2010 at 6:26 am
If he had retired with 2900 hits, would he make the Hall of Fame? Probably, although it might not be a sure thing. That's the way it's always been, though. Phil Niekro was less dominant than Bert Blyleven, but he got in on his 5th try because he had over 300 wins, while Blyleven is going to take at least 13 years. 500 home runs might not be an automatic ticket anymore, but 3000 hits still is, so he deserves to go.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:14 am
3,000 hits is still 3,000 hits. for the that reason alone, he should be in.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:47 am
In response to #59: Jeter is a poor example; he actually ranks 48th all time in MVP shares.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_cya.shtml
August 18th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Two of the five reasons against concede "his ability to hang on". I think his ability to hang proved he was a gamer. He gutted his way to 3000 hits despite his age and declining numbers. He gets in.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Matthew Passaro (#62),
I agree. I voted him in. I want to raise a question, however, because the landmark total argument is coming under increasing assault.
Is it still 500 homers, 3,000 hits, and 300 wins means (near) automatic induction, or not?
Increasingly, as players near these milestones, we're getting arguments as to why they're not good enough. It's happened with John/Blyleven/Kaat (300 wins), it's happened as sluggers like McGwire have reached 500 homers (and not just because of the steroids issue).
Now, we are actually getting arguments as to why 3,000 hits isn't good enough, in and of itself (too low an average, too-low an OBA, lousy defender -- as if that last one has ever kept anyone out).
Can it be as simple as, now that we've actually witnessed those events a few times ourselves, they've lost their luster? I would think that wins -- even with the debate as to how important they are -- should be even more attractive, because of much how more difficult they are to get, in these days of fewer starts and more reliance on bullpens.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Biggio is a first-ballot. Not just because of his totals and his above-average percentages, but because of his hustle and class.
In an era full of cheaters and question marks, he was a symbol of the way the game should be played. As was Bagwell. They should be the first two Astros in the HoF, and it would be great to see them go in together. Both made the other better, and together they were one of the best tandems in baseball for the late-90's.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:41 am
I think the hitting milestones are more in question since some have talked about 250 wins being the new 300 now that pitching has changed so much. 300 wins will be very rare from here on out unless the game changes again. With that said though, the hitting totals will still hold a lot of weight.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Matt Y,
Given that, how many of the 250-game winners not in the Hall do you see gradually making it?
Especially in light of the fact that Tim Wakefield seems to be slowing down, once Moyer-Pettitte-Martinez (is he coming back, or not?) are gone, it might be a couple of years before we even have an active 200-game winner.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
27 players have 3000 hits
24 have 300 wins
I thought the discrepancy would be wider (maybe 10 more with 3k hits) but it's going to be a lot harder to get 300 wins from hereon than 3k hits, I think...
August 18th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
JeffW,
For the pitchers at 250+ wins I'd put Mullane in hands down! McCormick should probably go in too (did McCormick do something so he's not in?) and I'm right on the fence with John --depends on the day, but I can see how he'd make an OK Vet pick. For Moyer I would say no since he's the ultimate compiler and a good bit worse than John (I'd say no even if he gets to 300 wins unless he wins a Cy or MVP of a WS or something-- hard to vote for a guy with a WAR of 47 over 24 years), and Kaat, Weyhing and Matthews no as well. Morris is just out too, but I can see him getting in and I wouldn't be that upset about it.
As for active players, even if Pedro did come back he's too far away from 250 with 219 --he's a lock HoFer anyway though. As for dominance, Pedro was better than Clemens, Johnson and Maddux. The guy was off the charts for 7-8 years with a few other very good years as well. Pettitte, if he can come back from this injury and get a few more wins this year and come back for another year so gets to ~260 wins, 3300 IP and a WAR of ~55 I'd vote him in too --at that point he'll also likely have 20+ postseason wins in addition to 5-6 championships and 8-9 WS appearances. Even for statheads, If he pitches another year (a 17th season) and gets to 250+ wins and ~3300IP, then just add his 250-300 postseason IP and 5 WAR points (don't even bother with the wins even though that would likely put him at 280+) and his WAR would be 59-60 in 3600IP. His WPA at that point would be somewhere around 25-27 and ERA+ of 115-120.
Active younger guys to watch are Halliday, Sabathia, Hudson, Oswalt, Santana, and perhaps Buehrle, but I don't see any of them except for maybe Sabathia and Halliday making a run at 250+.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Oh, I should mention that Mussina also goes in. As for Pettitte, clearly the HGH thing is a wild card that could hurt as well.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Can't believe some of the comments on this one.
1) Biggio absolutely deserves to make the Hall of Fame.
2) Biggio was not a Texas high school football player. He grew up in Long Island and went to college at Seton Hall.
3) No disrepsect to Andy because I love the site and the blog, but in the pros/cons list of all these HOF polls, there is always way too much emphasis on relatively meaningless stuff like playoff stat line, MVP voting, All-Star voting, etc.
4) Jon Heyman is widely known as clueless among reasonably intelligent baseball fans. Quoting his backwards HOF voting policy is not a great way to support an argument.
5) The accumulator/compiler angle is nonsense.
6) As someone earlier correctly pointed out, Biggio's walk rate was actually pretty good during his prime. Yes, the high HBP totals helped him, but he still routinely posted an OBP 90-110 points higher than his batting average over a ten year period. He had a .397 OBP when leading off the inning over a six year stretch. Overall he had an eleven year stretch with a .390 OBP over 7300+ PA. It's not like his good-but-not-great walk rate prevented him from posting a high OBP. The guy got on base a lot.
7) Larry Walker is nowhere near the HOF candidate Biggio is. It blows my mind that alleged saber-friendly people think so highly of Walker. I am sabermetrically inclined. I understand WAR and OPS+ and the neutralized numbers (though the neutralized numbers are flawed and WAR has its problems too). Coors Field made Walker's numbers cartoonish even if you take into account WAR and OPS+. The entire league hit .318/.383/.529 at Coors Field the first seven years of its existence (Walker's prime) compared to .260/.331/.410 in every other NL park. That's a .912 OPS for the league at Coors. That's the whole NL over a seven year span. That includes every pitcher and scrub catcher and mediocre player. Every halfway decent player would have put up an OPS well over 1.000 there. There were 6.92 runs per game at Coors in that time and 4.58 runs per game in every other NL park. Take the OPS+ and WAR for what they are worth and then actually take the time to look at the home/road splits of every star, mediocre regular and total scrub that played for the Rockies in that time frame and look at how drastic their splits are. Then look at Larry Walker's career numbers and try to take them as seriously.
8) Another note: Walker played 150+ games exactly once (153) and only topped 140+ games three other times (143, 143, 142). That's something that won't affect his rate stats and OPS+ but is definitely a mark against him. Biggio's games played by season in his prime (after 3500 innings at catcher, while playing two-thirds of his games turf, while playing 2B and turning double plays, while getting plunked by a million pitches): 162, 155, 114 (in a 115 G season), 141 (in a 144 G season), 162, 162, 160, 160. Biggio was a lot more durable and reliable. This matters. Biggio was moved to 2B in 1992 at age 26. The next 8 years he missed a total of 15 games. Walker's second highest games played total came in a year in which he missed 19 games that season alone. Biggio played 144+ games in a season 14 times. Walker did it once. And yes, I cherry-picked the 144-game mark. The point remains the same.
9) This is just more of an interesting note, not some important bit of statistical analysis, but of the 24 guys in the 3,000 hit club, Biggio actually ranks 10th in XBH/H. Seems high for a guy who was never known as much of a power hitter and hung on for so long as a "compiler." You wouldn't think such a large percentages of his hits were XBH even with the knowledge that he had a ton of doubles.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:18 am
#72,
Well put about Biggio. He's clearly in. However, I do think playoff numbers should count, but obviously they shouldn't hurt Biggio much at all. Also, being a compiler can hurt too, but I wouldn't call Biggio a compiler --yes, he added marginal value at the end, but he hung it up when he needed to. Walker is a borderline candidate, and the offensive numbers at Coors are cartoonish, however, he was a very good overall player when you look at his baserunning and defense --he played the game the right way, but obviously struggled to stay on the field --he's on the fence, but Biggio was head and shoulders better.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
re: Really?@#72--
I agree. Longevity is one of the HoF criteria--that is why you have to have played 10 years to be eligible. If Larry Walker were reasonably healthy during his career, he'd be a lock. Because Biggio was durable (900 more career games than Walker), played a key defensive position (though not always well), and did lots of little things well, he finished his career with 431 Win Shares, Walker with 311. I think that this is a more accurate comparison between the two players than their WAR totals, and appropriately rewards Biggio for, well, playing a lot more--you can't help the club in the tub, as it were. It also fairly reflects that when Walker did play, he was more valuable than Biggio (25.34 WS per 162 for Walker, 24.49 for Biggio).
August 19th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Justin: the problem with Win Shares is that you get positive value for being below replacement level. So IMO it overrates guys with longer careers. How much more valuable are your extra years if you are only playing at around replacement level? I'm guessing if you look at Win Shares, guys like Vizquel who've been around a long time but have just never been good enough to be HoF material, look like they are.
'Really?'@72: The problem with your Walker analysis, is that WAR accounts for all the stuff you mention. It takes a *huge* hit out of his raw OPS for playing in Coors, and he can't get credit for runs when he's not playing. WAR is an accumulation stat. As long as you belong in the show, you get positive credit for playing. So Biggio is getting credit for his extra PAs and his extra games, just not a huge amount, because so many of them were between replacement and average.
I don't get why you have a bunch of people certain that WAR doesn't penalize Walker *enough* for playing in Coors, at the same time you have people thinking it penalizes Dante Bichette and others too much. Was Bichette *below* replacement level the year he nearly won the triple crown? Because WAR thinks he was barely above it. And do you know why? Because it's dinging him fiercely for playing in Coors. Just like it's dinging Walker fiercely for playing in Coors. If you look at guys with similar raw stats to Walker, they don't have 67 WAR in 8000 PAs, they have 80-100. Before you assume that Walker is overvalued by WAR because of Coors, try looking at what other players on his teams in Coors get for WAR. The players who were average, tend to get average WAR. The players who were really mediocre, tended to get replacement level WAR, even when they put up big raw numbers (a la Bichette). The players who are very good, tend to get very good WAR. And only Walker got as much as he did.
This is my point -- you can't look at WAR, and then adjust for coors and less playing time -- WAR is already adjusting for those things. If you adjust further, it's because you think WAR is getting it wrong, and you need to have some justification for that belief and a sense of how much it is off and why.
Just saying "he didn't play as much" or "he played in Coors" isn't enough. You have to demonstrate that the extent this affects WAR is insufficient. I tried to do that, I looked at what kind of WAR other players had gotten in Coors, and you know, it seemed pretty reasonable to me. That's why I believe it's judging Larry Walker (and Todd Helton) pretty fairly. As definite, and arguable HoF players, respectively.
BTW, halfway decent players do not hit over 1.000 OPS in Coors, unless you are defining halfway decent to be "a lot better than average". The average may include pitchers and scrubs, but it also includes all the top players and Barry Bonds, and you might have noticed that managers have a tendency to give their best batters more PAs. 1.000 OPS relative to the league average in Coors, if you put the extra evenly in OBP and SLG would be around 120 OPS+ I don't call guys who hit for 120 OPS+ "halfway decent", I call them very good, and if they are excellent fielders, or play a valuable position at least acceptably, I call them all-stars and potential hall of famers.
August 20th, 2010 at 11:31 am
re: MichaelSullivan@75--
I'm not making the argument for Win Shares as the end-all, be-all stat--it is one of many tools that can be used to evaluate players, just like WAR, and it has its flaws, just like WAR. In real life, players *do* exist below replacement level. The part that exists above that line (however you choose to define it) is not the entire player. The Biggio/Walker comparison is a perfect example of this.
Whichever way you want to slice it, Craig Biggio played 900 more games in his career than Larry Walker. That is a significant value advantage for Biggio. It would be one thing if we were comparing Biggio to Joe DiMaggio, but we're not--we're comparing him to Larry Walker. An average, or even mediocre player who is playing in a game has more value than an excellent player who is not playing in a game. You can't have measurable value unless you play. I agree that Walker was a better all-around player, and a better player per game for his career.
It's not just Win Shares that says that Biggio's total value is greater than Walker's--Baseball Prospectus shows Biggio with 73.8 WARP, Walker with 62.4. Biggio had 900 more hits, 200 more stolen bases, scored 500 more runs in his career. In sum total, Biggio's value is greater. On a per-game rate-basis, Walker is better. But Walker's career is not enough to overcome a 900 games-played deficit to another good player.
August 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
"Chris Says: Biggio never finished above 4th in any year in the MVP voting. To me, that means that the MVP voters never considered him any better than the 4th best player in the league, let alone all of MLB. And these are some of the same voters as vote for the HOF."
OK, I'm a little late to the party, but let me respond to Chris:
1) I don't think the best way to evaluate a player's HOF merits is to use the opinions of the writers; this just reinforces the biases of those writers.
2) Many players have won the MVP award and gotten little support for the HOF (how did Frank McCormick, Bob Elliot, and Bobby Schantz do?); two players even won it twice, and have not come close to election (Roger Maris, Dale Murphy)
For what it's worth, here are all the Hall Of Fame position players who never finished higher than FOURTH in MVP voting*:
- Richie ASHBURN (7th in '51,'58)
- Wade BOGGS (4th in '85)
- Earl COMBS (6th in '28) no AL award in '29, '30
- Rick FERRELL (12th in '33) no AL award in '29, '30, but not a full-time player yet
- Chick HAFEY (5th,'31) no NL award in '30
- Travis JACKSON (4th,'34) no NL award in '30
- George KELL (4th, '50)
- Bill MAZEROSKI (8th, '58)
- Pee Wee REESE (5th, '49)
- Pie TRAYNOR (6th, '28) no NL award in '30
- Hack WILSON (5th, '26) He probably would've won it in 1930 (if there was an official NL award), or at very worst finished third behind Chuck Klein and/or Bill Terry, so he probably does not belong on this list.
* for many players, there was no MVP voting for part or all of their careers. The "recognized" MVP award started in 1931, but there were similar awards existing from 1911-1914, and 1922-1929 (no NL award 1922-23, and no AL award in 1929)
August 24th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Biggio is a HOF lock....a poster mentioned that walks get no respect and I believe it's true. Time Raines doesn't get alot of love to gain entry into the Hall, but what I find interesting is Tim Raines got on base more times than Tony Gwynn! Granted Raines had about 120 more plate appearances in his career, and it is reflected by his .385 career OBP to Gwynn's .388 OBP. But Raines stole about 500 more bases, and scored close to 200 more runs than Gwynn. Yet Gwynn is an automatic lock and Raines is considered borderline. I don't understand why Raines doesn't get more support.
August 25th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Does Biggio get extra credit for coaching his son's high school baseball team to the state title this year?
Lock HOFer for me. Just a great all-around player.