2016 MLB thread. THE CUBS HAVE BROKEN THE CURSE! Chicago Cubs are your 2016 World Series champions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, whatever man. He ranks in the 400's somewhere for career OPS. Eye popping.
Click to expand...
OPS is severely flawed, so I don't really care. You also keep bringing up his career rate stats even though they were dragged down by him staying too long, chasing 3000 hits. Look at his prime.
Forever good...Never elite.
Click to expand...
As Pro mentioned, how many players were better than him in '97? It wasn't more than a handful at the most. His peak was very high and yes he was elite at one time.
If you put in Biggio just because others already in compare, then that completely takes away from the integrity of what the hall of fame is supposed to be.
Click to expand...
No, not JUST because of that, I'm just pointing out that based on who is in, it should make Biggio a lock. But personally I don't really care about that since he deserves to be in regardless.
 
Last edited:
Everything is flawed if it helps my argument, it appears. What metric is so overwhelming to suggest he's one of the greatest to ever play the game?

So one great year is enough? Seriously, man...

This is ridiculous...We just have differing opinions, because I think him being a lock is laughable. I guess we're done here.
 
Last edited:
Everything is flawed if it helps my argument, it appears.
Click to expand...
No, most people who follow baseball understand that it's flawed.
So one great year is enough? Seriously, man...
Click to expand...
I pointed to that one year because you and others said he was NEVER elite, if he was never elite, what do you call his '97 season?

He got on base at a very high rate for years, stole bases for years, played above average defense at 3 positions for years, he has enough combined offensive and defensive value to make the HOF. I don't really know what to tell you, I'm not really sure why Biggio getting in would rustle jimmies, but he's certainly done enough to make the Hall.
 
Last edited:
No one has mentioned this bit it seems poignant.

I think many times we favor people who have "the look" of The best player(s) Craig Biggio looks like a guy you could beat in anything via the eye test. But in reality he is better than we probably gave him credit for while he was playing. If we're honest, we tend to forget players with no flash.

There is something to be said about guys who can play for long periods of time. Of course it isn't the defining factor but you dont last 15+ years in professional sports without bringing something to the table.

It sucks that the HOF is more of a frat than an honors society but it is what it is I guess.

The real point is that stats don't change memories and first impressions. And sometimes people don't make an initial impression but they sure make a lasting one.
 
Just wanted to give some congrats to one of my favorite players growing up, the Big Hurt on getting in. Even more excited about Maddux, one of my all time favorite athletes and players. Love how he showed it isn't all about physical strength but intelligence and precision go a long way. Seems like a real. Ice dude.
 
PhillyzPhan said:
Proshares said:
He gave a good explanation but he still deserved it.


Meanwhile, this man has a vote :lol:

 
Click to expand...
Well... not anymore. Reports are saying he died.
Click to expand...

700


651, I can see your point to a degree. I just really disagree.

The reason I mentioned times on base and not OBP is because I knew where it would lead. People would say it's not impressive, I'd say Cal Ripken is only at .340 or Paul Molitor is only .369 and it'd be back and forth non stop and go off on a different tangent. I'll just agree to disagree. No harm no foul :lol: :pimp:
 
2K blew. Wish they'd bring back MVP Baseball :pimp:

The Show is the goods though, can't wait to see what it's like on the PS4.
 
Nats signed Jamey Carroll yesterday. The only player in the bigs to play for both the Expos and the Nats.
 
"Valencia has raked left-handers during his career to the tune of a .329/.367/.513 slash line in 428 plate appearances. Moustakas' career slash line against lefties is .222/.275/.332, so talk of a platoon was no surprise."

Royals general manager Dayton Moore has put the kibosh on any such theories with a bold statement of how things are going to be: "Mike Moustakas is our everyday third baseman. It just gives us more depth, and our job as a baseball operations staff is that Ned (Yost) and the coaching staff have as much depth as possible and are in a position to match up as they see fit on any given night."
Click to expand...

Hopefully they don't end up learning the hard way.
 
No one has mentioned this bit it seems poignant.

I think many times we favor people who have "the look" of The best player(s) Craig Biggio looks like a guy you could beat in anything via the eye test. But in reality he is better than we probably gave him credit for while he was playing. If we're honest, we tend to forget players with no flash.

There is something to be said about guys who can play for long periods of time. Of course it isn't the defining factor but you dont last 15+ years in professional sports without bringing something to the table.
Click to expand...

Sorta agree with this.

My personal standards for HOF are higher than the majority, I've come to learn. I agree though what is "best of the best?" If (for example) the 3rd best second baseman of all time has stats that barely register with above average outfielders, is he still a HOFer because of his position? Usually it's yes. It's interesting to wade through. For me though players must be ranked in tiers -- and it just seems we have removed a tier from player ability. Many seem to want no "very good" tier. Its either average, good, or Hall of Famer.

I've brought up Bert Blyleven many times. I even watched him pitch many times as a kid. The bloggers helped get him in but to me Blyleven is in no way a Hall of Famer. Not a national name when he was playing, no real postseason legend, no eye-popping awards, no "you gotta get to the park tonight" chatter when he was taking the mound. It's sorta warped but that all plays a part for Hall of Famer to me, and "the look." It's okay to merely say he was "very good" and even that can be a stretch.
 
RyGuy45 said:
My personal standards for HOF are higher than the majority, I've come to learn. I agree though what is "best of the best?" If (for example) the 3rd best second baseman of all time has stats that barely register with above average outfielders, is he still a HOFer because of his position? Usually it's yes. It's interesting to wade through. For me though players must be ranked in tiers -- and it just seems we have removed a tier from player ability. Many seem to want no "very good" tier. Its either average, good, or Hall of Famer.I've brought up Bert Blyleven many times. I even watched him pitch many times as a kid. The bloggers helped get him in but to me Blyleven is in no way a Hall of Famer. Not a national name when he was playing, no real postseason legend, no eye-popping awards, no "you gotta get to the park tonight" chatter when he was taking the mound. It's sorta warped but that all plays a part for Hall of Famer to me, and "the look." It's okay to merely say he was "very good" and even that can be a stretch.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this.  It is ok for people to view a player as a very good ball player, but not a Hall of Famer.  I agree that people dont seem to want to rank players in this tier.  I would put Biggio in said tier.  The tier that players like Will Clark, Matt Williams, Don Mattingly and Tim Raines belong in. Players of THAT caliber.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  They are all damn good ball players. But they are not HOFers to me.

As far as Blyleven is concerned, again, I totally agree with you. 
 
Last edited:
exnihilo said:
It sucks that the HOF is more of a frat than an honors society but it is what it is I guess.

The real point is that stats don't change memories and first impressions. And sometimes people don't make an initial impression but they sure make a lasting one.
Click to expand...

And a moralizing fraternity at that.

Great analogy.
 
Last edited:
dland24 said:
Totally agree with this.  It is ok for people to view a player as a very good ball player, but not a Hall of Famer.  I agree that people dont seem to want to rank players in this tier.  I would put Biggio in said tier.  The tier that players like Will Clark, Matt Williams, Don Mattingly and Tim Raines belong in. Players of THAT caliber.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  They are all damn good ball players. But they are not HOFers to me.

As far as Blyleven is concerned, again, I totally agree with you. 
Click to expand...

Guys you are saying this like its self evident?

Tim Rains is the second greatest leadoff hitter ever, and its a joke to compare him to Will Clark, Mattingly, Williams, who either at their best weren't better or weren't as good as him for as long as he was. He's better player than Tony Gwynn and is probably 87% that Ricky was, playing for montreal for ****** teams is the only thing thats keeping him out of the hall. Meanwhile Jim Rice is in the hall of fame,

Bert Blyelven is easily a better pitcher than Tom Glavine, he's better than Smoltz, he's better than a ton of pitchers in the hall so I don't even know what your talking about. Playing in Minnesota, and not winning 300 games is the only thing that kept him out of the hall.

This is the point or arguing and digging deep and making logical and consistent arguments, saying Bert Blyleven is not a hall of famer becuase" he just isn't" doesn't cut it.
 
Last edited:
That's an unfortunate set of circumstances.  He finally put it together last season and seemed to cement himself as the #2 in that rotation.
 
macbk said:
I may be late with this stat, but I'm actually baffled...

Greg Maddux faced 20,421 batters in his career. Only 133 of those at-bats went to 3-0 counts.

:wow:
Click to expand...

Lowkey one of the craziest stats ive ever seen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom