Get real. On that list 3 players don't have enough at bats to qualify for a batting title. Those 3 players are Kent, Valentin and Burke. Are you arguing that those 3 players aren't better than Biggio RIGHT NOW? This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post about Bagwell in 04. Some of you are just unable to objectively look at players. The freaking numbers don't lie. PS. I STILL WANT BIGGIO TO REMAIN A STARTER UNTIL HE GETS 3000 HITS. Sorry for the bold, but I wanted to make sure everyone understood that.
Exactly. They don't qualify. Judge Biggio by comparing him to players who have played a similar amount of games and ABs. Its not fair to compare Bidge to those guys. Just like its not fair to think that Hairston is going to bat .500 all year.
And if you are unable to grasp statistics, and specifically, "sample size", then I invite you to do the same, because you have no clue.
You're the one that fails to recognize that Kent and Burke are better 2nd baseman than Biggio right now. I'd say you're the one with no clue and I think most outside of this message board would agree.
And Luke Scott is a better hitter than Ichiro Suzuki, right now, correct? You see how ridiculous your argument is?
I'm not making that argument, but thanks for making my point. Would you have played Preston Wilson ahead of Luke Scott right now? Answer that and maybe the lightbulb will turn on in your head like it did for Purpura.
1) Wilson wasn't replaced by Scott. He was effectively replaced by Lamb. 2) Scott got his shot in the lineup due to injury, not because he had superior #s to Wilson, or anyone, based on a small sample size. Your question is totally irrelevant, especially considering you said earlier that you were not advocating benching Biggio. Your whole argument was that Biggio's OBPS was below average, which, was proven not to be the case. So pick an argument and stick with it instead of changing directions when your post was proven to be false. Is this about whether Biggio should be benched or whether his OBPS is below average? They are two totally different arguments. One is subjective and one is objective.
Offensively, I don't think you can make a serious argument that Biggio is better than Kent this year. The sample size argument is valid in that their performances this year cannot be evaluated against one another due to too many variables (given more sample size, would Kent slump also, is Kent really that valuable if he's gone 40 games, etc). So both arguments IMO have merit. Statistically, it's not logical to compare Biggio with Kent. Realistically, at this point in their careers Kent is better. This all IMO of course. Thinking subjectively only, I'm major bummed out by Biggio's slump. Knowing it won't happen again, part of me still wants to see him finish a year at .315 or so just one more time (avg, not obp!).
Am I the only one that things Xenon is completely missing the point Codell is trying to make? Its almost frustrating reading their transcripts.
I want to see Biggio succeed as much as anyone, but why are you people so quick to dismiss that Kent is the better hitter than Biggio. Kent has had plenty of at bats on the season 275+ and has more rbi's than Biggio.
I wasn't quick to dismiss it--I didn't even dismiss it! You need to reread my post. Twice I said Kent is better this year. Twice! About the stats/sample size thing, statistics don't always tell who's the better player. They tell what's been done, and almost invariably when one uses past measurements (statistics) to extrapolate future performance one misses the mark by quite a bit--due to all those variables (injury, slump, surrounding hitters in the batting order, etc.). That's why comparing players statistically with widely varying sample sizes (and 140 AB's is a big deal) doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't need stats to tell me Jeff Kent is a better hitter in 2006 than Craig Biggio. All I have to do is watch.
Good enough. Tell me in your expert opinion does Craig Biggio rank higher or lower offensively than 8th best NL starting 2nd baseman? Here's the list Biggio Giles Hudson Cedeno Phillips Carroll Uggla Kent Graffanino Valentin Utley Castillo Barfield Vidro Durham Belliard Oh and for ****s and giggles where do you think Chris Burke ranks among that list.
And this is the problem with people overusing stats. I love Biggio, my favorite player of all time. But the dude is a liability on defense and to try and use solely offense stats to suggest he is not below average is folly at best. He can handle what gets to him but has no range at all.
That is not a very well-written article, not well-titled at the very least. To me the author is mixing and matching from two different ideas - the best players never to have won an MVP and the best players that should have won an MVP. Biggio is most definitely on that first list, but almost certainly isn't on the second. He was consistently great in his prime, but never had a single season so dominant that it warranted the MVP. Even in his very best seasons (1994-95, 1997-98), there were multiple players who had far better years - Bagwell in 94, McGwire in 98, and Walker in 99 are three of the most impressive seasons in history, IMO.
Last year Biggio was terrible on defense statistically and visibly. This year, he seems to be better and is showing it statistically. 11th in RF, 5th in Field Percentage, 6th in ZR. With little evidence about this except antecdotely, I think it is this: He's playing closer to 1st than traditionally and conceding straight up the middle and even just right of 2B to Everett. (The luxuries a stud defensive SS can give you that casual fans ignore.) This allows him to cover the gaps better and makes the Astros' defense better as a whole.
I agree 100% about AE being able to lessen some of Biggio's lack of range. I was very much against the rumored Tejada trade because it would have meant there would no range at all from both middle infielders. That would be a recipe for disaster at MMP, where minimizing baserunners to avoid huge homers is a key to success. AE's glove saves many more runs for the Stros as built than his bat costs us.
I'm stilll waiting for the response to this. Who's willing to rank the players above especially now that we have a week's more data to consider.
Explain it to me. Maybe I rode the short bus. Btw, here's something interesting...Jeff Kent now has 337 plate appearances on the season.
