Talk:Bobby Higginson

Untitled

I'm dubious with this part of the article:

Although he was paid $11,850,000 in 2003 and $8,850,000 in 2004, he appears to be reaching the end of his career as it is apparent that his bat speed has slowed and he is no longer able to hit with the authority he did in 2000. Further, he will make $8,000,000 in 2005, and has contributed one RBI to the team. The real genius here is Higginson's agent, for getting the Tigers to agree to such a big contract. However, since we are dealing with a contract executed in the Randy Smith era, that might not be saying much.

The last part especially seems to have heavy POV. Could somebody with more experience figure out what (if anything) should be removed? Jayc 22:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The assessment of the incompetence of Randy Smith, however justified, is opinion. It's colorful metaphor characteristic of disgruntled fans (Detroit-area fans of professional sports are fans of the Red Wings, Pistons, Shock, or Wolverines; other Detroit fans are disgruntled), but not encyclopedic. One has no objective means of establishing his incompetence as a role in the poor performance of the Detroit Tigers baseball team.

There was some justification in paying the high salary: Bobby Higginson had been a very good player in the recent past, and the Tigers had a dry farm system -- arguably the least effective in baseball since the mid-1980s. Again, that is opinion, but if one uses the criterion of a player who remains in the majors for a ten-year career, since 1983 the Tiger farm system has turned out relatively few players of that caliber of desirability. The players who qualify since Howard Johnson (who played on the 1984 World's Championship team) include Mike Henneman (barely), John Smoltz (traded from the Tigers to the Braves for Doyle Alexander), Buddy Groom, Travis Fryman, and now Bobby Higginson. One is an almost-certain Hall-of-Famer (Smoltz), one had a long and productive career (Fryman), and the others have had up-and-down careers. There's no tragic figure whose career has been unduly foreshortened, and no flash-in-the-pan star.

It's safely said that if the Tigers had had more talent, then Higginson would not have gotten the huge salary. Higginson has been a .300 hitter with some pop in his bat and good defense, which any team could use. But as is said elsewhere, the Tigers of the 1990s drafted badly and traded ineptly, so the Tigers treated him as if he were a great star and hoped for the best.

His major-league career, barring some miracle, probably ends with the last payment from the Tigers, as he is now probably a .250 hitter with no power and whose range is terribly limited. Nobody needs that sort of play now. --66.231.41.57 01:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Randy Smith

I deleted the Randy Smith paragraph. It was heavy POV and is more about Smith than it is Higginson. No Guru 06:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My edit was reverted. I'm going to go to the trouble of explaining myself a little better. I believe the following paragraph should be deleted (or changed substantially).:

According to detractors of Randy Smith, former general manager of the Tigers, Bobby Higginson is a prime example of how the Tigers were run under Randy Smith, a player of moderate ability signed to a long term "max-out" deal who has not lived up to the contract, perhaps due to the poor productivity of the farm system and the inept trades and free-agent signings that the Tigers made under Randy Smith.

for a couple of reasons.

• It is heavily POV and not close to being a netutral statement and is not balanced. If this paragraph is to remain it should show an opposing view which would make it more neutral, but I don't beleive it should remain because:
• It is about Randy Smith and belongs in an article about him (maybe one should be started).

Please do not revert to an old version without explaining edits on this talk page. Thanks. No Guru 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

pov tag

Doesn't seem required any longer. No Guru 06:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stat freak

Bobby Higginson had a very fine year in 2000... but comparing that one-year achievement to any first-rate season of Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Ted Williams, Kaline (the contributor missed him) or whomever is ludicrous. It was not good enough for an All-Star selection or a share of an MVP award. At his best, Bobby Higginson was an above-average player with a broad range of skills, and he cannot be faulted for the poor performance of the rest of his team. At best he was clearly an above-average ballplayer. Note, though, that he was never an All-Star selection even though he was on a bad team and someone had to be chosen from each team. --Paul from Michigan 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Could not find 19th player citation

According to the Lahman database, Higginson is the 13th and not the 19th player to achieve Runs gt 100, HR gte 30, 2B gte 44, RBI gt 100 and SB gte 15 by the year 2000.

Babe Ruth 1921 Rogers Hornsby 1922 Babe Ruth 1923 Babe Herman 1930 Chuck Klein 1932 Frank Robinson 1962 Alex Rodriguez 1996 Bernard Gilkey 1996 Jeff Bagwell 1996 Ellis Burks 1996 Larry Walker 1997 Barry Bonds 1998 Shawn Green 1999 Bobby Higginson 2000

I made an edit to the article to say 13th but I'm not sure how to cite a database query...

Plattprogram12 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)