[bigboydan]

Craig Biggio should get his 3,000th hit this month. He's roughly 25 hits away from reaching that accomplishment, and nobody is talking about him at all. Barry Bonds should take a lesson from Biggio on how to do things the right way in regards to making it into the HOF the right way.

[EaglesPhan36]

Meh. I'm an Astros fan for life, but I don't think he deserves to be in there. 3,000 is an accomplishment for sure, but he's roughly a .280 lifetime hitter with an average arm in the field. And in the last 5 years, he's only hit above .280 once. I think he is .. 'scuse me WAS a solid player, but HOF ... I'd say no.

[Senator7]

He's in like Flynn if he reaches 3,000.

Whether he deserves it just for that is a different debate...

[Willie Bee]

Yes.

[The HG]

Yeah, I never quite understood why certain career milestones were considered a HOF lock. Why is longevity considered so valuable as far as fame is concerned, but single-season heights are considered less so.

Imagine if someone broke the single-season HR or RBI, or even better, AVG or hitting streak records, but only played a regular career, and maybe had their excellence cut short a bit by injury, a late start, or whatever. Does that person deserve much less to be in the hall than a guy like Biggio, who really did nothing other than play solidly for many years in a row?

[Willie Bee]

The short answer to your question, HG, is there are no hard, set in stone rules as far as statistics go for HOF consideration. The standards set by the Hall of Fame are fairly ambiguous and open to interpretation according to each fan and, more importantly, to each voter.

Now for the long answer...

My personal criteria is simply based on whether or not I consider the player to have been in the top 10% among his contemporaries. I'm not going to debate you whether or not my criteria is the best possible view. I'll just say that my way is right and if you don't agree with me then you're wrong (I've been recently told by a poster here that my "rare blend of arrogance and incompetence" is amusing, so I thought I'd try it out...how do you like me so far )

There is a statement in the HOF rules that in some small way does address your comment about a player who has one outstanding year and that's it:

6. Automatic Elections — No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

The only other criteria listed, aside from minimum service requirements is as follows:

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Leaves it pretty wide open.

The statistical milestones are simply a tool to measure a player's effectiveness and contributions on the field. I don't think longevity in itself should get a player into the Hall automatically. But at the same time, it shouldn't count against him.

[The HG]

Yes I know there are no official rules to getting in the Hall, but there are informal ones: 3,000 hits, 300 wins, and 500 HRs. I don't think there's anyone who achieved that who hasn't gotten in, but some who have who are in and are questionable. Biggio would be a classic example.

Willie, I have a truly, truly rare blend of humility and genius, and no one ever f**kin notices.

[Willie Bee]

Willie, I have a truly, truly rare blend of humility and genius, and no one ever f**kin notices.

Oh, we notice. But since you are so humble, we who do not feel worthy to be in your presence don't mention it on account of how you'd get all embarrassed.

My point was without a rigid set of criteria for all 400+ writers who vote, however many there are each year, you are bound to have players selected for all sorts of reasons and levels of "contribution." And as far as judging a player's contributions just on the field, how good a hitter or pitcher they were, I'm not sure how else to judge them than to stack them up statistically from era to era, so to speak.

I might suggest that Biggio's career is in a lot of ways like Nolan Ryan's. Certainly some obvious differences -- position, Biggio with one team, Ryan with four, Ryan actually did win one ring. But Ryan never won a Cy Young; Biggio no MVPs. Both tallied numbers for many seasons, both were perhaps at the top of their game/positions for just a few seasons each, both were pretty steady performers, Ryan seemed to only make the news for a no-hitter, Biggio rarely in the news, both men of pretty good character, integrity and a few more intangibles that are purely subjective.

The argument against Ryan for so long was he was 'barely a .500 pitcher.' I hate using wins, at least after about 1955-1960, to rate a pitcher. Wins probably ranks 80th or later on my list of stats judge a pitcher's effectiveness by. It's pretty much a bullsh¡t stat for an individual in my opinion.

My question back to those who supported that reason for Ryan not being in Cooperstown was if you're going to rate a pitcher for only being .500, then why not the position players as well? The Cubs were something like .489 with Ernie Banks in the lineup.

You can make a statistical case, as you well know, to support or oppose a lot of issues. But the only other alternative to employing stats in the mix is to just go by, "Well, I saw him play, and he was/wasn't a very good player, should/shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame."

[onlooker]

I'm not sure if those 3,000 hits will get him in. I would like to see him go don't get me wrong, but I just don't see it.

[Willie Bee]

I'm not sure if those 3,000 hits will get him in. I would like to see him go don't get me wrong, but I just don't see it.

Why not?

[Senator7]

He'll get in if he gets to 3,000 because that's a huge achievement and he's also got longevity and the reputation of a blue collar player working for him.

[5teamparlay]

9-22-07:

Craig Biggio had a pinch-hit single for his 3,054th hit, moving past Rod Carew into 21st place on the career list.

[B1GER1C828]

hes a HOF'er