BBWAA had an opportunity to divert attention *away* from the roiders and point it to two guys--or at least one--who did things the right way. It could have been all about a well-respected, class player whose numbers are among the top five 2nd basemen *ever*. Instead, the story is the same broken-record bull**** roids stuff and of course the BBWAA themselves. Well done, you imbecilic collection of self-ordained moral police. This sudden piety about a "hall of fame" already filled with cheaters, wife-beaters, drunkards, racists, and at least one admitted gambler is stupid on so many levels. Way to have zero historical perspective. Kudos for failing to see the greater themes at play here. Congratulations for reducing the game to this inane melodrama. The longer this **** continues, the more credibility the BBWAA and the "hall of fame" hemorrhages. What a joke.
agree with most of this.. except that I don't think it would have changed perception or the stories being told. They'd have just talked about the differences between Biggio and the rest and made the conversation more about roids.. and less about Biggio and his accomplishments Stupid all around
Tony Massarotti's reasoning says it in a nutshell why Biggio is being unfairly punished for the steroid area. [rquoter] “As for the 3,000 hits, unfortunately, the steroid era has corrupted numbers once regarded as milestones. The statistics themselves just don’t mean that much to me anymore and, quite frankly, I think Biggo’s hit total is inflated by the years at the end of his career, when he wasn’t a very productive player.” [/rquoter] So even though Biggio was never accused of using steroids his stats are still going to be diminished because it was the steroid era? Just shameful.
I agree with you, but Larkin did hit 33 HRs in 96, so he had pop. All the guys I listed are in the HOF, had way more HRs combined than Bagwell in their careers, but they couldn't combine for more HRs in the postseason. The point was to be that just because Bagwell sucked in his 1st 3 postseasons, it doesn't discredit him as a HOF player. The whole Astros team basically laid an egg in those postseasons. Heck, I was there to watch Kevin Millwood throw a 1-hitter against us in Game 2 of the 1999 NLDS.
I was at that one, too. RF I think. Walked up and bought tickets day of game...terrible Braves fans that they are
I was in RF. Not too far from where Caminiti hit his HR for the one hit in that game. They are lucky to fill half the stadium on day playoff games during the week.
We’re already dismissing 3,447 PAs, discounting the doubles he hit in the Astrodome and the HRs he hit at MMP, pretending HBPs aren’t part of the game……. If you want the playing field leveled because your guy couldn’t stay healthy, how do you suggest we do it? What if we apply Biggio’s pace to Larkin’s PAs? Biggio’s line would, of course, remain the same: .281/.363/.433/.796. Counting stats: H: 2,216 (Larkin: 2,340) BB: 840 (939) TB: 3,412 (3,527) 2B: 484 (441) HR: 210 (198) RBI: 851 (960) R: 1,336 (1,329) Again, let’s set the stage – we’ve wiped out a significant advantage for Craig Biggio (longevity and health; essentially 5.5 seasons) and the numbers still remain almost too close to call. Yes. In that example, by .004. Overall, counting every plate appearance, it’s .019. So Craig Biggio was nothing more than a large elbow pad? FYI – he wore the elbow pad *because* he was getting hit so often (83 times between ’95 and ’97). Bonds did the same thing. It’s not as if he put the elbow pad on and *then* started letting fastballs ricochet off his armor. Says the guy who keeps discounting and/or asking us to remove large, advantageous chunks of Biggio’s career. And that catcher wound up winning more Gold Gloves as a middle infielder than Barry Larkin. The one area where Biggio’s limp to the finish line really hurt him as he was only able to add .8 to his WAR over the course of his final 4 seasons. Larkin was a terrific base stealer – but not significantly better. Biggio was no slouch with a 77% success rate. Using Larkin’s rate (83%), Biggio would have netted 33 more steals over a 20-year career. I understand why you initially mentioned him. But then you then went on to say: And then proceeded to prove it by wiping out and/or dismissing large chunks of Biggio’s accomplishments while pointing a finger at me because I apparently only see what I want to see.
weird. Yeah I wasn't far at all from the HR either. It landed maybe 5-10 rows in front of me and within 5-10 seats of me, if I remember right
this post was beautiful, line-by-line, point-by-point pwnage. I will add that "mechanical" is a funny way to criticize someone defensively. Who cares how he looked? Dude wasn't good defensively; he was *great*.
unless you are talking about his last 6 or 7 years, where he wasn't good defensively; he was *awful*.
that's nice but biggio isn't first ballot material and because he played with roiders he shouldn't get in on the first ballot because it would put him in elite company because he played with guys the media doesn't like
biggio will get in. first ballot stuff is stupid, but if you look at first ballot guys biggio isnt one. now charlie palio who is pretty smart is stupid to say 3k hits isn't an automatic. there are 27 guys with 3k hits, that's still an automatic
Kirby Puckett? Ozzie Smith? Robin Yount? Lou Brock? Biggio is on that level. It isn't like every 1st ballot guy is Nolan Ryan or Babe Ruth.
So why's everyone b****ing about him not going in first ballot? Hell Roger ****ing Clemons isn't going in first ballot.
