Craig Biggio Not a Hall of Famer?

Adam Darowski from Beyond the Boxscore (BtB) recently polled the BtB readership regarding a list of players who are not yet on the Hall of Fame ballot but who he thinks are deserving of enshrinement and wanted to know who the readers thought should get in and who will get in. While the results as a whole are interesting, the one thing that really surprised me was that Craig Biggio was considered unworthy of the Hall of Fame by the readers and that they also felt the BBWAA would not vote him in either. Of all the players who first become eligible in 2013, I figured Biggio had the best shot of being honored (which does not mean he is the most deserving, but that is another post entirely).

Biggio seems to fit the “old school” view of a great player. He was a gritty, hustling player (414 career stolen bases at a 77% success rate) who moved around the diamond in the interests of his team. He played for 20 seasons, all with the Astros, and was a seven time All Star and twice finished in the top five for MVP voting. He also got to the magical number of 3,000 hits—there are no players that have been eligible with 3,000 hits not in the Hall of Fame (Biggio and Derek Jeter are not eligible yet, and Pete Rose has been suspended indefinitely).

Biggio also seems to fit the “new school” view of a great player. His 117 wRC+ from weak-hitting positions (catcher, second base, and centerfield) made him extremely valuable. Baseball-Reference gives him 66.2 WAR, while FanGraphs gives him 70.5 WAR. Both metrics put him at the 10^th best 2B WAR in history. Now you could certainly argue that Biggio is not one of the top ten 2B of all-time, but Bill James argued back in 1998 that Biggio was the fifth best 2B of all-time. And even if you want to knock Biggio slightly out of the top ten, isn’t he still a worthwhile Hall of Famer?

But what most shocked me about the results is that Biggio has something going for him that most contemporary hitters do not—no steroid suspicions.  Biggio is listed as 5’11’’ and 185 pounds on Baseball-Reference, and he never hit more than 26 home runs in a season (and that being in Minute Maid Park, which really helps right handed power numbers). He never bulked up and put up crazy power numbers, as evidenced by his respectful but not impressive .433 career slugging percentage.

So why is there no love for Biggio and the Hall of Fame? Honestly, I’m not sure.  But it will be interesting to see how the BBWAA’s actions compare to the estimates of the BtB readers.

Veteran's Committee Doesn't Do Enough

Much has been made of Ron Santo’s well-deserved induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, but unfortunately not enough attention is being paid to the plight of the other prominent Chicago superstar on the ballot, Minnie Minoso. While not everyone is glossing over the Veteran’s Committee‘s decision, there is nowhere near the level of outrage about Minoso’s displacement as there should be.

Part of the reason people were so upset that Santo had not been enshrined was because he had a multidimensional impact on baseball. His caliber of play and career statistics practically speak for themselves: A career 125 wRC+, including 342 home runs and 1,108 walks, combined with good defense at 3B, a position that has been fairly scarce of great players, easily puts Santo as one of the ten best 3B of all-time based purely on the numbers. But Santo was about so much more than the numbers. He and teammate Ernie Banks were so popular in Chicago and around the nation because it was so obvious they loved playing baseball and appreciated how lucky they were. Baseball at its core is a game and is supposed to be fun, and Santo never forgot it. Santo’s heel-clicking after every Cubs win was the perfect embodiment of this mindset. Santo also became an inspirational figure when it was discovered that he was able to play at such a high level while having diabetes, proving the disease can be manageable and that it can’t stop people from doing great things. For all these reasons, Santo was obviously worthy of being a Hall of Famer.

Even though Minoso spent much of his career in the same city as Santo, for whatever reason his cause has not been picked up with the same fervor, even though his impact on the game also goes way beyond his statistics. Minoso could hit (his career 132 wRC+ is greater than Roberto Clemente’s), run (he stole 205 career bases and his presence was integral for the “Go-Go Sox” style of play to be successful), and fielded LF very well. Unfortunately, his career was fairly short, as his performance dropped off a cliff after 1961, which makes his numbers borderline for the Hall of Fame (although I believe on the inclusive side of the line). But what is important to remember is that Minoso is one of baseball’s racial pioneers and that his career was adversely affected by the segregation present in baseball. Minoso’s first year in baseball was 1951 at age 25, where he burst onto the scene, hitting .326/.422./.500 and leading the league with 14 triples and 31 stolen bases. If Minoso had been white instead of a black Latino, his talent would have gotten him into the majors much sooner.

Roberto Clemente is normally thought of as the leading pioneer for Latin American players, and rightly so. However, it is important to note that when Clemente entered the majors in 1955, Minoso had already been a star for four years, and had shown that Latin American players could be successful at the highest levels. For me, I view Minoso as the Latin American version of Larry Doby. Besides their playing statistics being remarkably similar, I see Doby’s ability to be a star CF as justifying taking a chance with Willie Mays, just as Minoso’s ability justified taking a chance on Clemente. The success of players such as Doby and Minoso were important at the time to prove that Jackie Robinson wasn’t the exception or an aberration, but that MLB needed to open its doors fully to the African American and Latin American populations. This has been appreciated with Doby, as he is in the Hall of Fame. Why not so with Minoso?

If I had a vote on the Veterans Committee, I would have voted for Santo, Minoso, Ken Boyer and Luis Tiant. I can understand Boyer and Tiant not being selected as their statistics are borderline, and that they don’t bring a whole lot else to the table (besides Tiant’s awesome wind-up). But it seems that Minoso could be destined to be another player unrecognized by the Hall of Fame for his greatness, and that seems quite unjust considering all he contributed to baseball.

Rizzo's Final Offer to Buehrle

Adam Kilgore reports that the Nats' final offer to Mark Buehrle was 3 years, $39 million. Fangraphs' contract crowdsourcing results had Edwin Jackson getting 3 years, $31 million. Going into the offseason, Jon Heyman projected Jackson to get 3 years, $36 million. Did I mention that Jackson's and Buehrle's numbers over the past three years are eerily similar?

A Better Fit for the Nats than Mark Buehrle

Let’s have a little thought experiment. Here’s the statistics over the past three years for Mark Buehrle:

2009: 213.1 IP, 4.43 K/9, 1.9 BB/9, 3.84 ERA, 3.4 WAR
2010: 210.1 IP, 4.24 K/9, 2.1 BB/9, 4.28 ERA, 3.7 WAR
2011: 205.1 IP, 4.78 K/9, 1.97 BB/9, 3.59 ERA, 3.4 WAR

Pretty decent and consistent numbers. But you already knew that Buehrle is decent and consistent. That’s why the Marlins just signed him to a 4-year, $58 million contract, snatching him away from Mike Rizzo and the Nats, who considered Buehrle their number one priority coming into the offseason. Rizzo seems to have balked at both the size and duration of the contract, and I think I have an idea as to why. Take a look at the numbers over the last three years from this mystery player, who we’ll call Mr. X for now:

2009: 214 IP, 6.77 K/9, 2.94 BB/9, 3.62 ERA, 3.6 WAR
2010: 209.1 IP, 7.78 K/9, 3.35 BB/9, 4.47 ERA, 3.8 WAR
2011: 199.2 IP, 6.67 K/9, 2.79 BB/9, 3.79 ERA, 3.8 WAR

Mr. X is practically identical to Buehrle. Yes, Mr. X gives up more walks than Buehrle, but he also gets significantly more strikeouts. It should be noted that Mr. X is right handed, while Buehrle is a southpaw and therefore a slightly rarer commodity, but I would argue Mr. X has been slightly better over the last three years, so they’re essentially the same value. Here’s the catch, though, Mark Buehrle is 31 years old, but Mr. X is only 28. So who is this mystery player, and why is he important? Mr. X is none other than Edwin Jackson, and he’s important because he’s also on the free agent market this winter.

My guess it that Rizzo heard the price for Buehrle, looked at Jackson, and thought, Why should I commit 4 years and $58 million to this 31-year-old, when I could pay $36 million over 3 years for this 28-year-old who might actually be better? Sure, Buehrle has a longer track record, but a track record that only extends to 2009 didn’t stop GMs from fawning over C.J. Wilson (Wilson before 2009: 1.3 WAR. Since: 12.5 WAR). Now, Jackson is a Scott Boras client, and the Nats do have a history of paying exorbitantly for Scott Boras clients (Jayson Werth, anyone?), but even if Rizzo ends up signing Jackson to, say, $50 million over 4 years, is that such a terrible deal (especially when you consider that Jackson has been worth over $15 million each of the last three years according to Fangraphs dollar value metrics)? Now that Wilson has been snatched up by the Angels, Edwin Jackson is certainly the best free agent starting pitcher available, but he might have been the best fit for the Nationals all along.