Posted by bad_luck on 1/9/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
So incredibly stupid. The BBWAA is an embarrassment.

Except when it comes to evaluating the difference between the careers of Biggio and Williams, apparently.

Of course Biggio is a lock - 3000 hits is still an automatic induction for the vast majority of voters.  The question is should it be.

Regardless of what your evaluation of the differences in their careers is, the primary reason Biggio is going to get in easily with the writers while Williams just dropped off the ballot is because Biggio stuck around from age 38 to 41 and put up four additional past-peak years, while Bernie hung it up at 37.  There's certainly value in that, but that much?  I've always been pretty dubious about the idea that you should be able to significantly improve your HOF resume in the last 4-5 years of a 20 year career.  By that point, you are what you are, unless you manage to completely defy the normal career path.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/11/2013 8:25:00 PM (view original):
Fact of the matter is.....Biggio isn't a HOFer.  Neither is Bernie Williams.

LCD shouldn't be the determining factor. 

Before Kingman, everyone with 400 homers made the HOF.    Now we know 400 HR is still a big deal.    Why isn't anyone screaming for Kong?

He hit homer! Homer good!

Here is an interesting piece, Pud Galvin, the original juicer.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573866-pud-galvin-the-godfather-of-juicing


Biggio - Very, very low peak value for someone who people think should have been a first ballot hall of famer.  He was never a dominant player.  Sure he was pretty good and was really good for a a little while, but was never dominant.  We are talking about a guy who hit .281 and slugged .433  Where's the beef?

Yeah, I'd put them all in but I don't think it will happen for a long time, if ever, as long as there is significant opposition from actual hall of famers.

I don't understand why Biggio has escaped the steroid suspicion that has held Bagwell out.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand why Biggio has escaped the steroid suspicion that has held Bagwell out.

Bagwell was bulkier, which often becomes more associated with 'roids, even though it's not the only indicator.

And Biggio didn't breakdown the way Bagwell did. Once the 'roid scandal hit, Bagwell got significantly smaller, and faded out a few years later. He has good numbers, but his physical progression throughout his career fits the pattern of a steroid user.

Does it? Nate Silver:

The comparison between Bagwell and Biggio may be especially instructive. The suspicion that Bagwell used steroids seems to be based on a sort of stereotyping. Bagwell hit for significantly more power than expected based on his minor-league statistics, and grew heavier and bulkier physically. Slugging first basemen who played in the 1990s are automatically suspected of steroid use by a certain contingent of voters, while speedy middle infielders like Biggio are not.

If one were actually to look at the list of players who have been suspended for performance-enhancing drugs, it might call some of these assumptions into question. Among these players are the utility infielder Neifi Perez, who hit 64 home runs in a 12-year career, the slap-hitting outfielder Jorge Piedra, and a substantial number of pitchers. The incidence of performance-enhancing drug use seems to be fairly randomly distributed between stars and benchwarmers, players at different positions and those with different skills.

Some writers seem to think they can profile steroid users, and some otherwise-deserving players seem likely to be denied a place in Cooperstown because of it.

As I said, it's not just his bulk. Once the scandal hit and testing increased, Bagwell (like Sheffield and Giambi) looked like a deflated balloon. He got noticeably smaller, and his body began to break down. Is that proof? No, but it would strongly suggest steroid use.

Lots of guys get into the HALL on first ballot that don't do as much as Biggio. I remember when Ozzie got in, over 90%. Offensively, did very little outside SB. Defensively, stud. But 90% where a guy like Trammell gets 35%? Because of a back flip. Regardless what your argument is, no way is Ozzie that much better. In fact I'd say Tram was an all around better play..he was a quality defensive player as well with superior offensive over Ozzie. 

Where were the "no ones a first time HOF" that year? 

Anyone know about Jaffe WAR score system for HOF evaluation?
Seemed reasonable to me, but I'm not a stats geek
How does it look to everyone else?

If Alan Trammell won the 1987 AL MVP like he should have, his HOF case would be closed by now!

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/30/2012 7:14:00 PM (view original):
Also, FTR, I'm not sure either are HOFers,   I'm just saying that Bernie and Edgar are comparable as players simply because not taking the field makes it easier to hit.

Beautiful.