Most Overrated Players of All-Time - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball History

Most Overrated Players of All-Time

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby jnormy » Wed May 23, 2007 12:11 am

noseeum wrote:
jnormy wrote:
noseeum wrote: If you compare Craig Biggio very carefully to Ken Griffey, Jr. in almost any season, you will find that Biggio has contributed more to his team than Griffey has. Let's do 1998 as a starting point...in 1998 Ken Griffey outhomered Biggio 56 to 20, which was a huge thing, 36 homers. Biggio's advantages were...well, everything else." - Bill James, The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract


OK, all that does is prove James has a man crush on Biggio and as a result isn't able to make a fair assessment. "Everything else" huh? Like triples? KGJ 3, Biggio 2. How about RBI? KGJ 146, Biggio 88! Walks, KGJ 76 to 64. Slugging? KGJ .611 to .503. OPS? KGJ .977 to .906. Total bases? KGJ 387 to 325. Even runs, which you would think Biggio would have won going away, was close: 123 for Biggio, 120 for KGJ.

So much for James's credibility when talking about his boy Biggio... :-t


The only thing James has a mancrush on is stats. He doesn't really have "opinions" about players, in his view. He pretty much views them as facts. You might say he has opinions on which stats are important to winning a game or creating runs, and you might disagree with them, but all of his ratings stem from statistical analysis of what he feels is most important to win a baseball game. I'm not saying he's right about Biggio, yet. I'm just stating his evaluation is most certainly not based on a mancrush with Biggio, but rather on a mancrush with Win Shares. If you accept Win Shares as an accurate representation of a player's value, than Biggio was a better player than Griffey by over 40 win shares for the decade, which is huge.

Here's detail from the rest of that essay, so you decide whether you agree or not:
"Biggio's key advantages were 18 doubles (51-33) and 49 singles (137-88). How do you balance those things? Pete Palmer in The Hidden Game of Baseball pegged the value of a home run at 1.4 runs, a double at .8 runs, a single at .46, numbers which are probably as good as any other. That appraises Griffey's advantage at 50.4 runs... and Biggio's advantages at 37 runs, give or take a tenth... Griffey is still 13 and a half runs ahead, but we're just getting started."
[he goes through a bunch more stuff here, but I'll summarize]
-Biggio had 141 runs created vs. Griffey's 135 runs created
-Biggio did this in the NL, where avg runs per game was 4.6 vs. 5.01 for AL.
-Griffey played in a better hitter's park, given a PRI from STATS of .97 vs. .90 for the Astrodome.
-All told, Biggio gets 35 Win Shares while Griffey gets 29.
-This is just for that one year, and then he goes through all the other years of the decade, where Griffey had more win shares in only one season.

Then he ends it with this:
"Look, I'm not knocking Ken Griffey. Ken Griffey Jr. is a great player. Craig Biggio is better. The fact that nobody seems to realize this... well, that's not my problem. I'm not going to rate players by how many Nike commercials they do."

LOL. Agree or disagree, the guy calls 'em like he sees 'em.


"WELL, EVERYTHING ELSE." James's words, not mine. Anyone can massage numbers to their own liking, and he chooses to make a grossly exagerrated and false statement while completely disregarding at least six major stats in which Griffey had an advantage in '98. A plus-58...fifty-effing-eight!... in a stat as important as RBIs doesn't matter in his eyes. Amazing.

So I personally don't give a rodent's behind how he calls 'em... he obviously sees 'em through blinders in this case.
jnormy
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1298
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby bigh0rt » Wed May 23, 2007 12:21 am

jnormy wrote:
noseeum wrote:
jnormy wrote:
noseeum wrote: If you compare Craig Biggio very carefully to Ken Griffey, Jr. in almost any season, you will find that Biggio has contributed more to his team than Griffey has. Let's do 1998 as a starting point...in 1998 Ken Griffey outhomered Biggio 56 to 20, which was a huge thing, 36 homers. Biggio's advantages were...well, everything else." - Bill James, The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract


OK, all that does is prove James has a man crush on Biggio and as a result isn't able to make a fair assessment. "Everything else" huh? Like triples? KGJ 3, Biggio 2. How about RBI? KGJ 146, Biggio 88! Walks, KGJ 76 to 64. Slugging? KGJ .611 to .503. OPS? KGJ .977 to .906. Total bases? KGJ 387 to 325. Even runs, which you would think Biggio would have won going away, was close: 123 for Biggio, 120 for KGJ.

So much for James's credibility when talking about his boy Biggio... :-t


The only thing James has a mancrush on is stats. He doesn't really have "opinions" about players, in his view. He pretty much views them as facts. You might say he has opinions on which stats are important to winning a game or creating runs, and you might disagree with them, but all of his ratings stem from statistical analysis of what he feels is most important to win a baseball game. I'm not saying he's right about Biggio, yet. I'm just stating his evaluation is most certainly not based on a mancrush with Biggio, but rather on a mancrush with Win Shares. If you accept Win Shares as an accurate representation of a player's value, than Biggio was a better player than Griffey by over 40 win shares for the decade, which is huge.

Here's detail from the rest of that essay, so you decide whether you agree or not:
"Biggio's key advantages were 18 doubles (51-33) and 49 singles (137-88). How do you balance those things? Pete Palmer in The Hidden Game of Baseball pegged the value of a home run at 1.4 runs, a double at .8 runs, a single at .46, numbers which are probably as good as any other. That appraises Griffey's advantage at 50.4 runs... and Biggio's advantages at 37 runs, give or take a tenth... Griffey is still 13 and a half runs ahead, but we're just getting started."
[he goes through a bunch more stuff here, but I'll summarize]
-Biggio had 141 runs created vs. Griffey's 135 runs created
-Biggio did this in the NL, where avg runs per game was 4.6 vs. 5.01 for AL.
-Griffey played in a better hitter's park, given a PRI from STATS of .97 vs. .90 for the Astrodome.
-All told, Biggio gets 35 Win Shares while Griffey gets 29.
-This is just for that one year, and then he goes through all the other years of the decade, where Griffey had more win shares in only one season.

Then he ends it with this:
"Look, I'm not knocking Ken Griffey. Ken Griffey Jr. is a great player. Craig Biggio is better. The fact that nobody seems to realize this... well, that's not my problem. I'm not going to rate players by how many Nike commercials they do."

LOL. Agree or disagree, the guy calls 'em like he sees 'em.


"WELL, EVERYTHING ELSE." James's words, not mine. Anyone can massage numbers to their own liking, and he chooses to make a grossly exagerrated and false statement while completely disregarding at least six major stats in which Griffey had an advantage in '98. A plus-58...fifty-effing-eight!... in a stat as important as RBIs doesn't matter in his eyes. Amazing.

So I personally don't give a rodent's behind how he calls 'em... he obviously sees 'em through blinders in this case.


Keep in mind that this is coming from a guy who thinks Biggio is the most overrated 2B in MLB history...

You do realize that the RBI is arguably the most joke of a statistic in all of baseball, right? It's right there with batters Runs Scored and Wins for Pitchers. The common denominator here is that they are entirely team dependant and do not showcase individual talent or production, the way that James' analyzed stats do. So, leaning on RBIs, or calling them important, is really going to get you no where here.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24818
(Past Year: 307)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

Postby noseeum » Wed May 23, 2007 12:22 am

jnormy wrote:
noseeum wrote:
jnormy wrote:
noseeum wrote: If you compare Craig Biggio very carefully to Ken Griffey, Jr. in almost any season, you will find that Biggio has contributed more to his team than Griffey has. Let's do 1998 as a starting point...in 1998 Ken Griffey outhomered Biggio 56 to 20, which was a huge thing, 36 homers. Biggio's advantages were...well, everything else." - Bill James, The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract


OK, all that does is prove James has a man crush on Biggio and as a result isn't able to make a fair assessment. "Everything else" huh? Like triples? KGJ 3, Biggio 2. How about RBI? KGJ 146, Biggio 88! Walks, KGJ 76 to 64. Slugging? KGJ .611 to .503. OPS? KGJ .977 to .906. Total bases? KGJ 387 to 325. Even runs, which you would think Biggio would have won going away, was close: 123 for Biggio, 120 for KGJ.

So much for James's credibility when talking about his boy Biggio... :-t


The only thing James has a mancrush on is stats. He doesn't really have "opinions" about players, in his view. He pretty much views them as facts. You might say he has opinions on which stats are important to winning a game or creating runs, and you might disagree with them, but all of his ratings stem from statistical analysis of what he feels is most important to win a baseball game. I'm not saying he's right about Biggio, yet. I'm just stating his evaluation is most certainly not based on a mancrush with Biggio, but rather on a mancrush with Win Shares. If you accept Win Shares as an accurate representation of a player's value, than Biggio was a better player than Griffey by over 40 win shares for the decade, which is huge.

Here's detail from the rest of that essay, so you decide whether you agree or not:
"Biggio's key advantages were 18 doubles (51-33) and 49 singles (137-88). How do you balance those things? Pete Palmer in The Hidden Game of Baseball pegged the value of a home run at 1.4 runs, a double at .8 runs, a single at .46, numbers which are probably as good as any other. That appraises Griffey's advantage at 50.4 runs... and Biggio's advantages at 37 runs, give or take a tenth... Griffey is still 13 and a half runs ahead, but we're just getting started."
[he goes through a bunch more stuff here, but I'll summarize]
-Biggio had 141 runs created vs. Griffey's 135 runs created
-Biggio did this in the NL, where avg runs per game was 4.6 vs. 5.01 for AL.
-Griffey played in a better hitter's park, given a PRI from STATS of .97 vs. .90 for the Astrodome.
-All told, Biggio gets 35 Win Shares while Griffey gets 29.
-This is just for that one year, and then he goes through all the other years of the decade, where Griffey had more win shares in only one season.

Then he ends it with this:
"Look, I'm not knocking Ken Griffey. Ken Griffey Jr. is a great player. Craig Biggio is better. The fact that nobody seems to realize this... well, that's not my problem. I'm not going to rate players by how many Nike commercials they do."

LOL. Agree or disagree, the guy calls 'em like he sees 'em.


"WELL, EVERYTHING ELSE." James's words, not mine. Anyone can massage numbers to their own liking, and he chooses to make a grossly exagerrated and false statement while completely disregarding at least six major stats in which Griffey had an advantage in '98. A plus-58...fifty-effing-eight!... in a stat as important as RBIs doesn't matter in his eyes. Amazing.

So I personally don't give a rodent's behind how he calls 'em... he obviously sees 'em through blinders in this case.


It's a fact Biggio had 6 more Win Shares. For James, that's basically end of story. Are you saying you don't agree that Win Shares are a good measure? That's fine if you do. I'm just asking.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby noseeum » Wed May 23, 2007 12:25 am

IllinoisBandit wrote:
Ty Webb wrote:
acsguitar wrote:Why'd you have to go and drag Donny baseball into this :~(


it brings a tear to my eye :,-( but i get the argument

however... jeter, come on, its the haters talking. they are more just tired of seeing him in the spotlight. guy is a lock for 190+ hits, 115 runs, .300+ BA, 15-20 bombs, 20 steals per season. no shot he is overrated... when people say that they are underrating him.


Most overrated defensive player...ever. I'd have to think about it a bit, but I'm pretty sure he'd be outside my top 15 SS's ever, and probably 20. Yet people act like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.


You're going to have to back that up with a list. Let's see it, so we can critique it. Who overrates him defensively? He's won gold gloves, but who cares about that. I've never seen anyone actually claim that Jeter is a great defensive short stop. I've seen people say "he's gotten a lot better." Or he's adequate. I've never seen comparisons to Vizquel, Smith, or even Arod. So who's overrating him?

Now let's see the list.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby jnormy » Wed May 23, 2007 12:32 am

noseeum wrote:It's a fact Biggio had 6 more Win Shares. For James, that's basically end of story. Are you saying you don't agree that Win Shares are a good measure? That's fine if you do. I'm just asking.


Sorry, I guess I should just bow out of this one. I'm not a numbers cruncher, just a baseball fan. Win shares sounds like a Wall Street statistic, not a baseball thing to me. I thought the point was to score the most runs, and if you're both scoring 'em and driving 'em in in bunches, you're doing a good thing. You know, triple crown and all that?

I just heard some commentators tonight praising the fact that Hank Aaron had so many career RBIs, using phrases like "he was a clutch hitter." To me, calculators don't win games, win shares don't win games, RUNS do. As in, runs scored and runs batted in, major stats that have been included in the box scores since as far back as I can remember.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned. Maybe the future of the game really does include some guy drinking a beer with a bud, watching Sportscenter, and enthusiastically proclaiming, "Man, that Smith is a win shares machine!"
Last edited by jnormy on Wed May 23, 2007 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
jnormy
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1298
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Yoda » Wed May 23, 2007 12:41 am

Did anyone mention Ozzie Smith?
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Yoda
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 21344
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 15th green...

Postby noseeum » Wed May 23, 2007 12:42 am

jnormy wrote:
noseeum wrote:It's a fact Biggio had 6 more Win Shares. For James, that's basically end of story. Are you saying you don't agree that Win Shares are a good measure? That's fine if you do. I'm just asking.


Sorry, I guess I should just bow out of this one. I'm not a numbers cruncher, just a baseball fan. Win shares sounds like a Wall Street statistic, not a baseball thing to me. I thought the point was to score the most runs, and if you're both scoring 'em and driving 'em in in bunches, you're doing a good thing. You know, triple crown and all that?

I just heard some commentators tonight praising the fact that Hank Aaron had so many career RBIs, using phrases like "he was a clutch hitter." To me, calculators don't win games, win shares don't win games, RUNS do. As in, runs scored and runs batted in, major stats that have been included in the box scores since as far back as I can remember.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned. Maybe the future of the game really does include some guy drinking a beer with a bud, watching Sportscenter, and enthusiastically proclaiming, "Man, that Smith is a win shares machine!"


LOL. I just saw that image in my head. I hear what you're saying bro, but to be honest, I think you might really enjoy reading the abstract, whether you agree with everything in there or not. James really has some pretty amazing insights into what it takes to win a baseball game, and he's a hell of a witty writer. Pick it up and I'm positive you'll enjoy it. It's one of the best baseball history books I've ever read:
http://www.amazon.com/Bill-James-Histor ... 102&sr=8-1
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Havok1517 » Wed May 23, 2007 12:43 am

Reese
Rizzuto
Maz
OSmith

are overrated and should not be in the HOF imo.
Havok1517
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Writer
Posts: 8538
(Past Year: 143)
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby bigh0rt » Wed May 23, 2007 12:53 am

The name of the game is scoring runs. However, therein lies the problem fundamentally with especially the RBI statistic. It keeps track of how many batters Player A drives in to score. However, that's all it accounts for. It doesn't consider the process that led to the run. Win Shares take into account lineup, park, era -- can we find common ground in that taking these into consideration is a step in the right direction towards determining value when weighing two players against one another? We're leveling the playing field and trying to analyze their contribution.

A Win Share, by definition, accounts for 1/3 of a Team Win. It's different than other SABR state like VORP in that it is based on total team wins, and not runs above an average/replacement player. As a hitter, Win Shares are directly determined by Runs Created, which again, analyzes the process of scoring a run, aside from just compiling how many cross the plate. Anything over 30 Win Shares tends to represent an MVP-caliber season; so Biggio's 35 is quite impressive. He was certainly hampered by playing in such a huge park in the Astrodome.

So, despite all of that, I still call Biggio the most overrated 2B in MLB history. B-) However, you should definitely look deeper into the game than the raw quantities that are Runs and RBIs. It's quite enjoyable and you get a glimpse into the process or the values that equate to creating runs and winning ballgames, as well as gain the ability to project said RBIs and Runs in the future at a more accurate rate.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24818
(Past Year: 307)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

Postby jnormy » Wed May 23, 2007 12:53 am

noseeum wrote:LOL. I just saw that image in my head. I hear what you're saying bro, but to be honest, I think you might really enjoy reading the abstract, whether you agree with everything in there or not. James really has some pretty amazing insights into what it takes to win a baseball game, and he's a hell of a witty writer. Pick it up and I'm positive you'll enjoy it. It's one of the best baseball history books I've ever read:
http://www.amazon.com/Bill-James-Histor ... 102&sr=8-1


I'm sure there's some great stuff in there, no doubt. The guy's a big name in the world of baseball writing. My only issue in this case was in that one specific example regarding the 1998 season. It just seemed to me from his "everything else" comment that he was massaging the information in that particular analysis to produce the outcome he wanted.

Thanks for the link, dude. I'll definitely check it out... ;-D
jnormy
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1298
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 18:36 hours
(and 96 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact