|
|
Post by chandler44 on Jul 1, 2007 14:37:13 GMT -5
Biggio played the good chunk of his career in the Astrodome while Sandberg played his in Wrigley Field.
|
|
|
|
Post by vega51 on Jul 1, 2007 14:38:39 GMT -5
whattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt? Do you think Biggio is going to hit .300? come on, enough said after that comment, really. And no, playing longer made Biggio worse player, are you watching the last 3 years?  Because he had 3,000 hits that does not say he is better than Alomar who did not. Alomar is better, same with Sandberg. |
|
|
|
Post by vega51 on Jul 1, 2007 14:39:34 GMT -5
and believe me, if he was a yankee or red sox he would be getting his 3,000 hits in aNOTHER uniform because they don't keep mediocre players as starters, believe me, ask boggs.
|
|
|
|
Post by chandler44 on Jul 1, 2007 14:41:37 GMT -5
Vega, I already posted the facts about the 3. What part of those stats do you think puts Sandberg or the umpire-spitter ahead of Biggio?
|
|
|
|
Post by astrobuddy on Jul 1, 2007 14:42:37 GMT -5
Whatever Vega.. he only needs .04 points to get passed Sandberg. Sandberg BA is .285, Biggio is .282. Thats nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by vega51 on Jul 1, 2007 14:45:21 GMT -5
yes, and he will NOT be able to catch him, when was the last time Biggio hit .280? ?? Do you think Biggio will catch Sandberg? Do you think he will hit over .300 to have a chance ( i don't think he can catch him hitting .300) ?? Come on ab, dont be such a blind fan, come on, be smart. |
|
|
|
Post by vega51 on Jul 1, 2007 14:48:46 GMT -5
hmmmm, chandler, what about average, OPB, slugging and OPS from Alomar??? Plus better fielder. Sanberg, what about aveage, slugging and OPS, plus better hitter? If for YUO longevity means, sucking for 3 or 4 years is good, then that is your opinion, I DISAGREE. Sanberg and Alomar are better, now, if Biggio HAD RETIRED 3 or 4 years ago then he may had been better than both, but right now HE IS NOT, sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by vega51 on Jul 1, 2007 14:50:47 GMT -5
Lets see, longevity. What is better, a guy with 1,000 hit in 10 years or a guy with 800 hits in 4 years? ? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMm |
|
|
|
Post by vega51 on Jul 1, 2007 14:52:19 GMT -5
WF can be good for hitters or bad, all depends on the wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by chandler44 on Jul 1, 2007 15:01:57 GMT -5
hmmmm, chandler, what about average, OPB, slugging and OPS from Alomar??? Plus better fielder. Sanberg, what about aveage, slugging and OPS, plus better hitter? I'll post the numbers for you again: Biggio .282/.365/.435 113OPS+ 1822r 3004h 658doubles 55 triples 286hr 1152rbi 413sb 1153bb Alomar .300/.371/.443 116OPS+ 1508r 2724h 504double 80 triples 210hr 1134rbi 474sb 1032bb Sandberg .285/.344/.452 114OPS+ 1318r 2386h 403double 76 triples 282hr 1061rbi 344sb 761bb NONE of the three stand out as leaps and bounds ahead, despite what you might think. I give the nod to Biggio for the versatility and for lasting longer. Had Alomar not flamed out so quickly, he would have been 'the one', but Biggio contributed to his teams longer than Alomar did, compiled better counting stats and comparable rate stats, considering where he played most of his career. For ME (who is YUO???) longevity means lasting longer, which is what the word means. There's no real opinion here, Biggio's career did last longer for both, nor did he suck for the last 4 years of it. Last 2, yes. But that is your opinion, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? |
|
|
|
Post by chandler44 on Jul 1, 2007 15:02:56 GMT -5
WF can be good for hitters or bad, all depends on the wind. Wrigley Field played as a hitter's park for almost all of the 80s. The Dome was *always* a pitcher's park. There is no comparison. A guy hitting .285 in Wrigley is not necessarily better than a guy hitting .282 in the 'Dome. |
|
|
|
Post by vega51 on Jul 1, 2007 15:09:41 GMT -5
so better is not better?
Those 2 players had better numbers but does not matter?
Ok, no problem, biggio is better then eventough numbers say otherwise.
ONLY THING he did better was play longer and while doing that sucking big time.
When people say, longer i have to reply, yes, he played longer and played awful basebal lin the last 3 or 4 years.
If that is important for you, no problem, but again, i prefer VERY GOOD over GREATNESS AND AWFULNESS.
|
|
|
|
Post by vega51 on Jul 1, 2007 15:16:27 GMT -5
and just for the record, biggio is closer to end his career hitting in the up .270's than hitting .285
|
|
|
|
Post by chandler44 on Jul 1, 2007 15:16:50 GMT -5
But the numbers aren't necessarily better. You conveniently leave off the FACT that park factor does affect the numbers. Biggio played in EASILY the worst park for hitters out of the three, so the rate stats are actually closer than you think. Look at their OPS+...Biggio 113, Alomar 116, Sandberg 114..those are all very, very close. Since they're all close, look at the counting stats like HR, runs, doubles, etc and Biggio smokes them in those cases.
Biggio hasn't played awful baseball in the last 3 - 4 years. His numbers were above average in 2004 & 2005.
Sandberg wasn't very good his last 3 years, either. He was awful in 94 & 97. Alomar wasn't very good in his last 3 years, either. His overall numbers for 02, 03, & 04 were all well below average.
Basically, your argument against Biggio being worse because he has had a few bad years to end his career doesn't hold any water, because both Sandberg & Alomar had the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by astrobuddy on Jul 1, 2007 15:18:41 GMT -5
Plus.. their number arent better as I posted earlier. Vega you keep saying it bt what numbers are you talking about.
|
|
