Jump to content

How Biggio's last season helped and hurt his HOF case.


mweb

Recommended Posts

I think Biggio should make the HOF and very likely will make it.

But I think his final season is fun to look at from the perspective of the more traditional voters versus the modern analysis/stats voters.

In Biggio's final year, he put up a 71 OPS+ and a -1.5 WAR. Awful numbers. Common sense would suggest that a season like that should either not effect his HOF case or should hurt it.

For people who look at stats such as WAR and look at rate stats, that would hold true.

However, for the more traditionally minded, Biggio's bad season got him to the 3,000 hit milestone, and that's a big deal. Every eligible player with 3,000 hits is in the HOF except Palmeiro who has the steroid issue.

I find it interesting that a net negative season value wise can actually be a good thing for one's HOF case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Biggio should make the HOF and very likely will make it.

But I think his final season is fun to look at from the perspective of the more traditional voters versus the modern analysis/stats voters.

In Biggio's final year, he put up a 71 OPS+ and a -1.5 WAR. Awful numbers. Common sense would suggest that a season like that should either not effect his HOF case or should hurt it.

For people who look at stats such as WAR and look at rate stats, that would hold true.

However, for the more traditionally minded, Biggio's bad season got him to the 3,000 hit milestone, and that's a big deal. Every eligible player with 3,000 hits is in the HOF except Palmeiro who has the steroid issue.

I find it interesting that a net negative season value wise can actually be a good thing for one's HOF case.

I wonder how McGriff's case would look if he had hung around for 500 Hr's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it being known as the "steroid era" and it being an era of inflated offense that the old school automatic counting numbers are not going to be enough to guarantee entrance to even those without the steroid taint.

I also think the logjam of steroid offenders, who are going to hang around on the ballot, is going to make it increasingly hard for folks joining the ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it being known as the "steroid era" and it being an era of inflated offense that the old school automatic counting numbers are not going to be enough to guarantee entrance to even those without the steroid taint.

I also think the logjam of steroid offenders, who are going to hang around on the ballot, is going to make it increasingly hard for folks joining the ballot.

That's an interesting point, but Biggio's big ticket counting stat was 3000 hits. Besides Palmeiro, did anyone else caught up in the era have 3000 hits? I think that would apply more to HR and RBI.

I think he gets in without any problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point, but Biggio's big ticket counting stat was 3000 hits. Besides Palmeiro, did anyone else caught up in the era have 3000 hits? I think that would apply more to HR and RBI.

I think he gets in without any problem.

We'll see. I agree that the "logic" of many of the voters is to only punish a) those who were actually caught and b) those who hit lots of homers, even though you look at Biggio's numbers and I don't see any reason to think he's any more/less of a suspect than Bagwell. Biggio had 57 homers through age 28, ended up with 291. He had a minor league season with 3 homers, not even in New Britain. He had much better power numbers in his late 30s than his early-to-mid 20s.

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that the HOF voting will be bizarre and inconsistent for quite a while. It won't surprise me too much if almost no one is elected by the BBWAA for the next 4-5 years. And like Poz said in his recent piece, the HOF may have to revamp the Vet's Committee or invent some new procedure to get people elected, because nobody comes to see a Hall where no one new is elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggio did move from playing his home games the Astrodome to Enron/Minute Maid in 2000, i.e. an extreme pitcher's park to an above-average hitter's park, especially for RH hitters. So while his HR power increased in his late 30s, his SLG actually decreased relative to the park-adjusted league rate.

There's still something fishy with the 90's Houston teams, most notably Bagwell and Biggio, especially with the Caminiti connection, but I don't really care, honestly. Regardless of whether or not they took steroids, some players were way better than others in the same era. McGwire's 583 HRs don't mean the same thing they would have in the 70's or 80's, but his 162 career OPS+ still means something. If most of the players in the era were on steroids, or even most of the greatest players, the best of them still belong. It means that we may have to reconsider the "automatic" numbers, but domination of an era, even the steroid era, is an impressive feat that you can't just dismiss, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggio did move from playing his home games the Astrodome to Enron/Minute Maid in 2000, i.e. an extreme pitcher's park to an above-average hitter's park, especially for RH hitters. So while his HR power increased in his late 30s, his SLG actually decreased relative to the park-adjusted league rate.

There's still something fishy with the 90's Houston teams, most notably Bagwell and Biggio, especially with the Caminiti connection, but I don't really care, honestly. Regardless of whether or not they took steroids, some players were way better than others in the same era. McGwire's 583 HRs don't mean the same thing they would have in the 70's or 80's, but his 162 career OPS+ still means something. If most of the players in the era were on steroids, or even most of the greatest players, the best of them still belong. It means that we may have to reconsider the "automatic" numbers, but domination of an era, even the steroid era, is an impressive feat that you can't just dismiss, IMO.

Brian McNamee, the guy who informed to the Mitchell Commission, worked with the Astros but didn't pass along either Biggio or Bagwell to the report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how McGriff's case would look if he had hung around for 500 Hr's.

So the strike of 94/95 is keeping him from getting in? Seems kind of silly.

If McGriff played clean while the majority of the sluggers took roids and hgh, he's really getting a raw deal when it comes to Hall consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the strike of 94/95 is keeping him from getting in? Seems kind of silly.

If McGriff played clean while the majority of the sluggers took roids and hgh, he's really getting a raw deal when it comes to Hall consideration.

So how do you know he was clean? And even if he was, he's in the mid-to-low end of the gray area for HOFers. He's clearly better than Jim Rice and some of the terrible VC selections. But he's 15-20 WAR behind players like Raines, Trammell, Whitaker. There are 45-50 position players who aren't in the Hall but are/were eligible who have higher career value than McGriff. Included on that list are Bill Dahlen (50% higher career value), Dwight Evans, Sal Bando, Graig Nettles, Buddy Bell, Ken Boyer, Darrell Evans, Willie Randolph, Reggie Smith, Joe Torre, Jack Clark, Stan Hack, Minnie Minoso, Will Clark, Jose Cruz, Cesar Cedeno, Ron Cey, Bobby Bonds, Jimmy Wynn...

McGriff wouldn't be close to the worst HOFer, but if he goes in the case gets much stronger for about 50 other guys who aren't in. I find it real hard to advocate for him when Dwight Evans is out, and Evans had a far higher career value and arguably a little higher peak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll see. I agree that the "logic" of many of the voters is to only punish a) those who were actually caught and b) those who hit lots of homers, even though you look at Biggio's numbers and I don't see any reason to think he's any more/less of a suspect than Bagwell. Biggio had 57 homers through age 28, ended up with 291. He had a minor league season with 3 homers, not even in New Britain. He had much better power numbers in his late 30s than his early-to-mid 20s.

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that the HOF voting will be bizarre and inconsistent for quite a while. It won't surprise me too much if almost no one is elected by the BBWAA for the next 4-5 years. And like Poz said in his recent piece, the HOF may have to revamp the Vet's Committee or invent some new procedure to get people elected, because nobody comes to see a Hall where no one new is elected.

He didn't get the same extreme jump in power that Bagwell got and sustained for 10+ years, but the jump in power in his late 30s certainly puts him under the same suspicion as Bagwell. Biggio was a very solid player for a number of years and his numbers really don't look all that weird until you get to 2004 and 2005, when in his late 30s he got a sudden boost.

I'm not saying it should keep him out of the HoF, and I don't think his case is as extreme as Bagwell's, but yes, he's got some suspect stats during the steroid era and that might keep some voters from voting for him.

By the way, don't you think guys like Bagwell would be adamant, adamant to the point of trying to get on every ESPN-type of show to say he never took steroids if he never did? I'm not just talking about the typical denial we read occasionally from these guys, but I an outrage that his hard work was done naturally and not with PEDs? I find a lot of player's quietness on the issue pretty damning as well. It's like the Dad's who go on National TV and ask people to find their wife who's been missing for a week, yet the husband doesn't look too emotional about it. 99 times out 100 they are arresting the guy for murder within a month.

Now people react in different ways to different "crimes" and it's not a fool proof way of determining a person's innocence or guilt, but if Bagwell knew 100 percent that he was clean throughout his career, I'd bet he'd be making his case of his "innocence" a bit louder. Also, guys that didn't take steroids don't make these comments, "It may help your workout, but it doesn't help you hit home runs.” He said that about the controversial testosterone-boosting androstenedione, the same supplement that McGwire said he used before he also admitted to taking steroids. So Bagwell makes an excuse about Andro but we're supposed to think that's all he took before it was banned? I mean, steroids only makes you stronger, right?

At the end of the day, I don't care if Bagwell or Biggio or Palmeiro or any of the steroid or suspected steroid guys get into the hall of fame, but once one of these guys go in, the flood gates should be opened up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do you know he was clean? And even if he was, he's in the mid-to-low end of the gray area for HOFers. He's clearly better than Jim Rice and some of the terrible VC selections. But he's 15-20 WAR behind players like Raines, Trammell, Whitaker. There are 45-50 position players who aren't in the Hall but are/were eligible who have higher career value than McGriff. Included on that list are Bill Dahlen (50% higher career value), Dwight Evans, Sal Bando, Graig Nettles, Buddy Bell, Ken Boyer, Darrell Evans, Willie Randolph, Reggie Smith, Joe Torre, Jack Clark, Stan Hack, Minnie Minoso, Will Clark, Jose Cruz, Cesar Cedeno, Ron Cey, Bobby Bonds, Jimmy Wynn...

McGriff wouldn't be close to the worst HOFer, but if he goes in the case gets much stronger for about 50 other guys who aren't in. I find it real hard to advocate for him when Dwight Evans is out, and Evans had a far higher career value and arguably a little higher peak.

I don't know if McGriff played clean, that's why I said, "If he played clean". I think if he played a clean career and got to 500, he would have got in. To penalize him for coming up 7 short while he missed about 60+ games in 94 and 95 because of the strike seems a little silly. He played a high level when he was on the field.

As far as other players, and their career value, I think it opens up the possibility (and maybe probability), that they'll eventually let in A LOT more players into the Hall. Especially with the Steroid Era players not getting in and so much confusion and speculation of who did what and when.

Personally, I think Jack Morris and even Jim Rice belong in the Hall. If the response to that is Dennis Martinez and Steve Garvey belong too, then maybe they should.

We as fans know who the absolute all-time greats are. Would it really hurt the Hall if Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly got in too? Not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if McGriff played clean, that's why I said, "If he played clean". I think if he played a clean career and got to 500, he would have got in. To penalize him for coming up 7 short while he missed about 60+ games in 94 and 95 because of the strike seems a little silly. He played a high level when he was on the field.

As far as other players, and their career value, I think it opens up the possibility (and maybe probability), that they'll eventually let in A LOT more players into the Hall. Especially with the Steroid Era players not getting in and so much confusion and speculation of who did what and when.

Personally, I think Jack Morris and even Jim Rice belong in the Hall. If the response to that is Dennis Martinez and Steve Garvey belong too, then maybe they should.

We as fans know who the absolute all-time greats are. Would it really hurt the Hall if Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly got in too? Not really.

That's fine, you're a "Big Hall" or maybe even "Really Big Hall" kind of guy. I'm probably in the Big Hall category, too. I think that they opened the doors really wide almost from the beginning (by the mid 1940s players were in the Hall who weren't any better than, say, Brady Anderson or Fred Lynn), so I think it's hard to shut it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaffe does some serious number crunching on the next few years. Thinks Biggio will make it.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-possible-upcoming-cooperstown-ballot-apocalypse/

For the Bonds and Clemens supporters, Biggio won’t do as well. Biggio is the third-best new guy in 2013, just like Young was in 1999. And he’s likely to do worse than Yount’s 77 percent among these guys. Under normal circumstances, Yount would be a 90-percent guy. He was a two-time MVP, after all. (Biggio might not seem as good a candidate as Piazza to some, but then again, Fisk debuted alongside Yount, and some might have preferred him, so that’s a wash).

What should happen? Well, among non-Bonds/Clements voters, Biggio should get around 85 percent. With the others, he’ll get less in what’s already a crowded ballot for people willing to support PED-rs. I’d guess he gets 65-70 percent of their vote. Maybe less.

Upshot: Biggio has a very good shot to get in. Assuming he gets 85 percent of the non-Bonds/Clemens guys (and he really should, given the clustering of Molitor/Winfield/Murray right at 85 percent), and assuming Bonds and Clemens get about 40 percent of the vote, Biggio needs only 60 percent of the votes from the supporters of Bonds and Clemens. That should happen.

His predictions for the next few ballots

2013 Biggio

2014 Maddux and one of Glavine/Thomas

2015 Johnson, maybe Pedro

2016 Griffey and a backlog guy like Thomas

It is startling the names coming up for enshrinement. It is one of the reason I have been saying that Moose isn't a shoo-in

2013- Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosa, Kenny Lofton and David Wells.

2014- Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina, Jeff Kent, Luis Gonzalez and Moises Alou

2015- Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Gary Sheffield, Carlos Delgado and Nomar Garciaparra.

Even I see at least 9 HoF members there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...