Craig Biggio – now THAT’S a Hall of Famer

Craig Biggio gets emotional before his final major-league at bat in 2007 / Icon SMI

Our recent discussion about Lou Brock a couple of questions about comparisons with Craig Biggio, who himself will be eligible for the Hall of Fame for the first time coming up soon. In short, there really is no comparison.

At first glance, Brock and Biggio have a number of similarities:

They both hit leadoff a lot in their careers
3000 hits thanks in part to a long career
lots of speed & stolen bases
lots of doubles
negative defensive contribution
OPS+ of about 110

After that high-level view, though, Biggio really separates himself from Brock (and most other players) when you dig into the details.

Now, about a year and a half ago, I wrote a detailed summary of the cases for and against Biggio’s Hall of Fame candidacy. I’m not going to rehash that entire argument here but rather draw specific distinctions with regards to Brock.

In terms of basic hitting, the players actually look fairly similar. Biggio is 21st all-time in hits, while Brock is 24th. Biggio had over 1,000 more plate appearances than Brock and actually had a slightly lower battering average (during a much higher run-scoring era).

I already mentioned above that their career OPS+ were similar–111 for Biggio and 109 for Brock. Since Brock’s batting average was a little higher, it means that Biggio did better in OBP and SLG. Indeed he had about a 20-point margin in each, thanks mainly to more walks, doubles, and homers.

As a result, Biggio was worth a lot more with his bat. He amassed 233 batting runs (the batting part of WAR) over his career, while Brock had 99 (by no means a poor total but obviously many fewer.) Brock made up some of the difference in his baserunning runs, where his stolen bases in part gave him a 79 to 49 edge over Biggio.

The massive difference for these guys, though, was positional adjustment. Brock was a left fielder. Some of his best LF contemporaries were Willie Stargell, Jim Rice, George Foster, Greg Luzinski, Carl Yastrzemski, Billy Williams, and Don Baylor. These guys all produced a lot more runs and had OPS+ of at least 125.

Biggio, meanwhile, played C, 2B, and CF–all positions that receive a bump in positional adjustment. Looking just at 2B, the only contemporaries of Biggio with an OPS+ of 125 were Lou Whitaker, Chase Utley, and Jeff Kent.

The net result is that for positional runs, Biggio scores a 55 while Brock had a -127. Ouch.

If you sum it all up, Brock was worth 361 runs above replacement for his career. Biggio, by comparison, was worth 648 runs above replacement.

As I said before, I don’t have a real problem with Brock being in the Hall of Fame. I can accept that he was the best leadoff hitter of his era and did a lot of good things on the field. Biggio, though, was one of the best players of his era and one of the most deserving Hall of Fame candidates I’ve ever seen.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

51 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Dr. Doom

12 years ago

Great follow-up, Andy!

I would also encourage those who’d like to read more about this to go to baseballpastandpresent.com, which posted on the same thing yesterday.

I would say that Biggio is a better candidate than Roberto Alomar, a contemporary player at the same position who got in on the 2nd ballot with 90& of the vote. Biggio should get in next year, and maybe Bagwell will get in at the same time. It would be poetic and right, I think.

Hartvig

12 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Not as poetic or right, in my mind at least, as Trammell & Whitaker but sadly, that ship has sailed… I pretty much am completely in turn with Andy & Dr. Doom’s assessments- he’s clearly qualified and his selection should be a no-brainer. The only possible hiccup might be if Biggio were listed on the Mitchell report (as I seem to recall he was, along with Bagwell). We know the BWWAA is punishing the admitted users- and likely will continue to do so- but were any of the recent inductees like Alomar or Larkin listed but voted in anyways for… Read more »

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Neither Biggio nor Bagwell was named in the Mitchell report. Gotta get your facts straight before saying stuff like that.

Hartvig

12 years ago

Reply to Andy

Hey, I just said that I thought he might have been…

vivaeljason

12 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

The problem I think that most people have with Bagwell not making the Hall thus far is that he WASN’T in the Mitchell Report and that the writers just *assume* he was on roids due to being a big guy, which isnt necessarily a safe assumption to make.

Andy

12 years ago

In fact Graham made a plea yesterday for others to discuss Biggio, which is why I wrote this.

Dr. Remulak

12 years ago

87% of his games at 2B or C. First ballot HOFer, imho.

birtelcom

12 years ago

Biggio dinged his owned reputation a bit by playing a little too long. Among all players with at least 60 career WAR since 1901, the worst individual WAR seasons have been: Andruw Jones, 2008 (age 31, supposedly): -2.3 WAR Ron Santo, 1974 (age 34): -2.1 WAR Pete Rose, 1983 (age 42): -1.8 WAR Reggie Jackson, 1983 (age 37): -1.6 WAR Craig Biggio, 2007 (age 41) and Carlton Fisk, 1986 (age 38): -1.5 WAR As it is, Biggio sits 69th among non-pitchers in career WAR since 1901, but if he had retired a year earlier he would be sitting at 56th… Read more »

12 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Continuing the comparison, Brock had a -1.9 WAR season in his next to last year.

MikeD

12 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Die young, stay pretty. Many HOFers are elected on their peak value, with their less-productive later years doing little damage their reputations in voters’ eyes. Mantle and Mays were going in no matter what they did in their last years. Mantle could have hung around into the early 70s, hitting .225 and he would have been elected. A lesser baseball god, like Reggie Jackson, also was going into the Hall. Yet a player like Andruw Jones is probably doing damage to any chance he has of making the Hall by playing for so long after his peak. Many people will… Read more »

topper009

12 years ago

Seasons with 50 2B and 50 SB 1912 Speaker (all time doubles leader) 1998 Biggio (5th all time in doubles) It also look like he switched to 2B because the entire league was running wild on him behind the plate. In his 3 full time C seasons he allowed 383 SB! The total of the 2nd place guys from 89-91 was only 288 in the NL. Maybe he shouldn’t get too much credit for “playing” catcher. Liveball record for most SB against, single season: 155 Piazza 1996 140 Biggio 1989 136 G Carter 1988 136 Kendall 1996 136 Ozzie Virgil… Read more »

Mackhold

12 years ago

Reply to topper009

Astros pitchers had a lot to do with that figure.

12 years ago

I think I now get how the pro-Brock people feel. Biggio was always one of my favorite players. If someone came along and said he wasn’t Hall worthy, I’d probably have the same reaction as the pro-Brock people have been having.

Wine Curmudgeon

12 years ago

Reply to Ed

Agreed. I’ve always wondered why people were so anti-Hall for Brock, If you saw him play, and I did a lot, his Hall credentials are obvious. He could a change a game with his speed — an infield roller turns into a single, a stolen base gets him to second, and then he scores on an error. You could see how frustrated the other team was when that happened.

Tony

12 years ago

Reply to Wine Curmudgeon

Brock drove the opposition nuts. His talents were absolutely necessary for the particular teams he played on and helped to win. That is, he was the catalyst for how those teams scored; on a different kind of team his talents would have been less in need. I’ve wondered too whether Brock’s fielding hasn’t been underestimated. If Curt Flood is in center, Flood takes all the fly balls to left center, even if Brock is right there to take the catch. I don’t know that the fielding statisticians have yet to figure out just what a fielder’s value is. Bill James… Read more »

Larry

12 years ago

Reply to Tony

I agree with Tony. I remember that the ’64 Cards were going nowhere until Brock arrived. And he was great in the every World Series, which is often overlooked. I always wonder whether Boyer, Cepeda and Torre would have won their MVPs without Brock helping them to get good pitches to hit. Maybe, but I still wonder. All the people who talk about Brock’s supposedly relatively low OBP have to remember that getting on base isn’t the goal. Scoring is the goal. That’s something Brock didn’t have a problem getting done.

12 years ago

Quoting Andy here: “The massive difference for these guys, though, was positional adjustment. Brock was a left fielder. Some of his best LF contemporaries were Willie Stargell, Jim Rice, George Foster, Greg Luzinski, Carl Yastrzemski, Billy Williams, and Don Baylor. These guys all produced a lot more runs and had OPS+ of at least 125.” That does make me wonder one thing. No one picks who their contemporaries are. Maybe Brock wasn’t as good as some of the other left fielders of his time. But if he had played at a different time, maybe his contemporaries wouldn’t be as good… Read more »

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Ed

This raises an interesting question. One could argue that Brock is a deserving candidate because even though his historical numbers don’t stack up well, he was the preeminent leadoff guy and base stealer for his era–so regardless of how he fits in with other eras, he should be in HOF representing his own era. But in his own era, he wasn’t even the 10th best LF in terms of offensive production–so it cuts both ways.

Brock’s a pretty unusual candidate, I think.

kds

12 years ago

Reply to Andy

He was the preeminent base stealer, but not the preeminent leadoff man of his era. Pete Rose was considerably better and it wouldn’t surprise me if there were others. This was an era where they went for high steal, low OBP guys. I don’t know that Brock played at a time at which LF was particularly loaded with HoF talent. Yaz is about #5 all-time in LF with Stargell and Billy Williams struggling to make the top 10. Good, but not “Willie, Mickey, and the Duke”, or even F. Robby and Hank Aaron in RF at the time Brock was… Read more »

12 years ago

Reply to kds

Right, I’m not sure how well the issue applies to Brock. I was just doing some out loud thinking. A better example might be Omar Vizquel. His supporters point out that it’s not his fault that he played during the PEDs era and during a time in history when shortstops were redefining the position offensively. Had he played in a different era he would have made more all-star games, done better in the MVP balloting, etc. And our perception of him would be a lot different.

Gary Bateman

12 years ago

Reply to Ed

I wonder if Brock had an lasting effect (positive or negative) on the way the game was played in the late 70’s/early 80’s and that is his Hall of Fame legacy. Do we have players like Willie Wilson, Omar Moreno, Ron LeFlore or Mickey Rivers without Brock and the apparent diruption to defenses he caused? Would Rickey or Raines have been looked at the same way? When Maury Wills stole 104 in 1962, it didn’t change the way teams built their offenses. I think Brock’s 118 SB’s might have.

Jeff

12 years ago

Love the photo. And look at his uniform; dirty and torn in his last game.

BTW – there’s that Whitaker guy popping up again.

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to Jeff

I love that dirty, torn uniform too.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Random observation on Biggio’s walk rate:

— Through age 34: 75 BB per 700 PAs.
— Age 35 onward: 48 BB per 700 PAs.

In general, it’s unusual for a player’s walk rate to decline in his later years; most players walk more in their mid-to-late 30s than they did before. However, anecdotally, it seems to be more common among players who end their careers with right around 3,000 hits.

Author

Andy

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Connecting the dots for anyone who might not see JA’s point, players approaching 3000 hits may put the ball in play more often to try to get those hits they need to reach the milestone.

JA, how about a study looking at the walk rates for players in, say, the last 50 games before they reach 3000 hits, vs. before and after?

Mike L

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

That’s interesting. But, if the decline started in his age 35 year, he was still 500 hits short of 3000, so you wonder if there couldn’t be several causes in his case. Damon’s walk rate was lower last year, but within the established range of his career.

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

Looking at the voting patterns of the BBWAA, it would be unprecedented for a player with 3000+ hits not to be a first-ballot HOFer, at least since 1962* (when they tightened up first-time HOF eligibility to a strict five-year rule). Since then, everybody has gone in first-ballot, with the exception of Rose and Palmeiro (but those were off-field issues). Add in playing 20 years with just one team; playing almost entirely “up-the-middle” defensive positions (except 131 games of corner OF); ranking very highly in several career offensive categories: (in order of importance) RUNS – 13th TIMES on BASE – 17th… Read more »

Hartvig

12 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

And of course the only reason the first four 3000 hit players you listed were not first ballot was entirely the fault of the screwed up voting they had for the inaugural elections- with a 60 year backlog of candidates it’s a wonder they were ever able to come to a consensus. Deserving as Biggio is, I’m not sure he’ll be first ballot. There will be a lot of noise around Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Schilling and Morris and who knows how voters will respond. I think Piazza will probably make it, even though he has a lot of detractors because… Read more »

MikeD

12 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

I’m pretty sure Biggio will not be a first-ballot HOFer. I do not agree with that as he is an obvious HOFer, but the voting patterns are very odd right now, in some ways it appears more difficult to be elected to the HOF today than in past generations (has anyone done a study on this?), and now add in the so-called “steroid era.” We’ve already seen Bagwell penalized in the early voting, even though he never failed a test, and I do believe that enough of those voters will also wonder if Biggio also was a steroid users. Guilt… Read more »

Paul E

12 years ago

I remember Bill James in his Win Shares journal NBJBHA stating that Biggio was the superior of Griffey and the best player of his era with the exception of Bonds. I don’t know if he was trying to sell people on the concept of his newfangled statstic, “win shares”, or actually trying to plead a case for something he believed (mistakenly, I believe). Still, Biggio is a HoFer. No doubt. First ballot? Not up to any of us In light of the death knell for win shares, I guess my next question is, “What’s the expiration date on the WAR… Read more »

CursedClevelander

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

Yeah, I think James really overplayed his hand re: Biggio at one point, especially in the NBJHBA. He’s a fantastic player, and a slam-dunk Hall of Famer, but I think he’s clearly behind Lajoie on the list of all-time 2Bs, and he certainly wasn’t better than Griffey in the 90’s.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

Actually, James wrote that Biggio was “the best player in major league baseball today,” and specifically superior to Griffey.

I’m sure he was sincere in that assessment at the time he wrote it, i.e., after the ’98 season. And bWAR mainly agrees: Biggio led all position players in ’97 with 9.6 bWAR, and was 2nd to Bonds for 1997-98 combined — a period in which Biggio hit .317/.409/.502, averaging 134 Runs, 21 HRs and 48 SB. And that was in the Astrodome.

Who do you think was better in that period?

CursedClevelander

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I’m sure he was sincere in his assessment, but he was also sincere in the assessment that Biggio was a better player than Lajoie, and I think he was clearly wrong on that point as well. In the narrow period of 97-98 (you can add 1999 as well), Biggio was better than Griffey, but it seems strange to isolate those two years alone to make that point. James wasn’t just isolating two years, though. Look at what he says: “Look, I’m not knocking Ken Griffey. Ken Griffey Jr. is a great player. Craig Biggio is better.” So, yes, I think… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to CursedClevelander

The accuracy of James’s claim about Biggio depends on what your definition of “is” is. James wrote — and this is the first sentence of the whole passage in question — “Craig Biggio is the best player in the major leagues today.” As you noted, James also said: “Ken Griffey Jr. is a great player. Craig Biggio is better.” The key word is “is.” To defeat that claim, it won’t do to show that Griffey was better for the decade of the ’90s combined, or for some extended period leading up to the moment at which the claim was made.… Read more »

birtelcom

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

The “best player” based on the past two years of bWAR performance? A simple addition of WAR over the past two seasons gives you: 1. Miguel Cabrera 14.3 T2. Evan Longoria and Jose Bautista 13.9 4. Adrian Gonzalez 12.9 5. Albert Pujols 12.5 If you prefer to weight the more recent year more heavily you can do 2010 WAR plus two times 2011 WAR. That formula gets you: 1. Jose Bautista 22.4 2. Matt Kemp 22.3 3. Miguel Cabrera 21.4 4. Evan Longoria 20.2 4. Ryan Braun 20.1 By the way, I have a vague recollection that in the paperback… Read more »

Paul E

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

JA:
Yes, it was “eminently reasonable” as per WAR:
1997-98 Bonds, Biggio
1997-99 Bagwell, Bonds, Biggio
1996-99 Bonds, Bagwell, Griffey, ARod, Biggs
1996-98 Bonds Griffey Bagwell ARod Piazza
1996-97 Bonds Grioffey Bagwell Piazza Knoblauck
1995-99 Bonds Bagwell Griffey Biggio

This is per baseball-reference..So, yeah, 1997 – 1998 he was PFG 🙂

CursedClevelander

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I would be perfectly fine with your take on things, JA, if not for the fact that he went back to 1992 when comparing the two. Like you said, if he just meant “at the moment,” I think it’s perfectly reasonable, but I don’t think that’s all he was doing. I think he used Win Shares to prove that Biggio had been better over the entire period of 1992-1998, and I think that he was incorrect in light of better stats that we have now.

And of course, Barry Bonds, not Biggio, was actually the best player in the majors.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I can see your point of view on that essay, C.C.

Paul E

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

J A / C C: James also believed George Brett the superior of Eddie Mathews and Wade Boggs, thought Amos Otis was a player beyond his apparent accomplishments and fantasized what might have been for Hal McRae if he hadn’t broken his leg in spring training. I guess we all have our favorites, but this is blatant, outright homerism…..so, yeah, I’d say he’s capable of losing objectivity. And he did this all in the face of his own objective data. If he called Biggio the better player, I guess he was finally leaning on objective data specific to a narrow… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

Paul, Bill James has written many things that I disagree with; my copy of the NBJHBA has many of my counterpoints scribbled in the margins, including what I humbly consider a dismantling of some key points in his argument for Hal McRae’s HOF destiny before breaking his leg. But as you’ll see from my lengthy reply to Cursed, I do not have the same take as you guys do on the thrust of this particular James claim. You apparently see the passage as James justifying rating Biggio well ahead of Junior in his all-time rankings. I see it only as… Read more »

CursedClevelander

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I can agree with that. I think you’re correct that his comparison of Biggio vs. Griffey was less about Griffey and more about James anticipating that people would find fault with his high rating of Biggio, and attempting to cut off their arguments before they could even make them. Griffey was likely the guy who would have been voted “best in the game” were you to take a national poll after the 1998 season. As I noted above, I think that James was overrating Biggio, particularly in rating him above Lajoie on his all-time 2B list, but I don’t have… Read more »

Dr. Doom

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

Gotta agree with JA here. Biggio was definitely better than Griffey in 1997. Sure, Griffey hit more HR (56-22) and had more RBI (147-81), but beyond that, there’s really nothing in Griffey’s favor (except SLG, which more or less goes along with the HR). Even Runs Produced (R+RBI-HR), a horrible stat, has them pretty close (Griffey, 216; Biggio, 205). Even total bases, which favors Griffey by quite a bit (393-310), may not if nuanced. I believe this was basically the argument set forth by James. So, start with the total bases (Griffey, +83). Then add in walks and hit-by-pitch (Griffey,… Read more »

MikeD

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

In fairness to James, we’re questioning his player evaluations in the NBJBHA, which was produced back in the 90s. Pretty much all player evaluation systems get updated, and I’m sure if James was to produce an updated verion of Win Shares, or a replacement system, yet our hardback (or paperback) editions of the Historical Abstract remain frozen in time. Frankly, when I flip through the book, I’m not thinking about Win Shares, I’m enjoying the writing and overall book As James always has done, he got people to think differently about player rankings, which was the great thing about the… Read more »

kds

12 years ago

Reply to Paul E

Never. Not that the WAR numbers we see today will be the same 25 years from now, but the basic idea will be here as long as we study baseball. Replacement level is the correct base to look at for a great many situations because a team never wants to pay for performance below replacement. Win Shares is wrong for these many purposes because those below replacement WS’s are not economically useful. A team making a trade, signing a free agent, negotiating with a player under the arbitration rules, should only care about production above replacement level. (For a full… Read more »

Dr. Doom

12 years ago

Reply to kds

I agree. One of the best things about WAR is that it’s not really a “statistic” in the traditional sense – it’s a framework. And a solid framework, at that. One could use whatever offensive/defensive/pitching measurements one wanted, plug them into the framework, and you’ll get similar results. That’s why there are multiple WAR systems floating around on the internet – different ways of measuring offense, defense, and pitching lead to different people making different decisions about the preferable system, and thus different “final answers.” Frankly, I think it’s probably a really good thing that there are so many different… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

12 years ago

#23/ Gary Bateman –
Yes, that’s an interesting theory, but I think the predominant reason those sort of players became more common was:

ARTIFICIAL TURF was installed in a number of stadiums

This put a premium on speed for outfield defense, and these sort of speedy players were much more likely to be prolific basestealers.

I am just shooting off the hip, so to speak; a serious study would correlate the % of parks using turf, with the rise in SB and certain thresholds of SB totals for league-leaders.

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Also, artificial turf was simply a better surface for stealing bases. It still is: Last year, per 100 team-games, there were:
— 93 steal attempts on grass, with a 72% success rate;
— 106 steal attempts on turf, with a 74% success rate.

Ten years ago, the figures were 92 SBA and 68% success on grass, 98 and 74% on turf.

Twenty years ago, 105 SBA and 65% on grass, 121 SBA and 69% on turf.

And in 1980, the heyday of Leflore and Wilson et al., 109 SBA and 64% on grass, 130 SBA and 71% on turf.

Paul E

12 years ago

@ 23 & 24: I believe that Willls was credited with changing the way the game was played, more so than Brock. In the NL of the 1950’s, there was a lot of station – to – station baseball with a lot of teams dependent on the three run HR. Not a lot of base stealing going on in the NL outside of Willie Mays in the ’50’s And Lawrence, it seems to me that the baseball of the 1970’s on turf (at least in the NL) was the most excitiing and competetive baseball of my lifetime, but, then again,… Read more »

TrivialSteve

12 years ago

Really no dispute in my mind on Biggio. But Andy’s mention of comparable 2B brings me to my favorite HOF bugaboo: no Sweet Lou Whitaker love. I can handle that he hasn’t been selected, but not that he went off the ballot after his first year of eligibility. It totally irks me that Whitaker will never be in the conversation, other than as a reference point for similar players. I’m not even a Tigers fan!

TrivialSteve

12 years ago

Reply to TrivialSteve

So, this is totally inappropriate (replying to my own comment), but I took a look at all the 2B in the HOF, plus Biggio, Kent and Whitaker (21 players in total). Using B-R WAR, I ranked them by Career WAR (to measure longevity), their 5 best seasons, the best 5-year range and best 10-year range. Doing this, it is obvious that top 5 are easily Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Morgan and Carew. The next grouping is Gehringer, Frisch and Lou Whitaker. They are clearly a rung below the top 5, but they are closer to the top 5 then they are… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to TrivialSteve

I’ve championed Whitaker’s HOF merits many times and will continue. But I can’t put him in the Gehringer tier. Gehringer has 80.9 bWAR, with half of that — 40.1 — in a 5-year peak from 1933-37 (which also comprises his 5 best individual years), and a high of 9.5. His best 10-year run is 63.6 bWAR. Whitaker had 69.7 bWAR, but no major peak, which is why he’s knocked as a “compiler.” His best 5-year run was 23.5 bWAR for 1988-92, with a high of 6.9. His 5 best years add up to 28.3 bWAR. His best 10-year stretch was… Read more »