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...
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.