Alomar and Biggio. Biggio and Alomar. Exact contemporaries, both among the greatest second basemen of all time. Which one was better?

For most of their careers, your average fan would have said Alomar. He probably would have laughed at you, too, that you would have to even ask such a silly question. Fans voted Alomar the All Star Game starter nine times; Biggio was chosen only four times. Altogether, Alomar had 12 All Star appearances, Biggio seven. Alomar did almost twice as well as Biggio in MVP voting, 1.91 award shares to 1.02. And while both were viewed as good fielders, Alomar was the more highly-regarded of the two, with 10 Gold Gloves to Biggio’s four.

As far as statistics... well, it depended on what stats you preferred. If you liked batting average, Alomar was your man: through 2001, he had a .306 career average, while Biggio was at .291. Alomar also had a few more homers, and 200 more RBI. He hit way more triples, and he stole more bases at a higher success rate. Here, take a look:

Then again, Biggio did have his advantages. He was hit by way more pitches (197 to 45) and grounded into far fewer double plays (93 to 173). He also played in the National League, while Alomar’s best years were in the AL – a run in Biggio’s league meant more than a run in Alomar’s. As for defense, Alomar was good, but he wasn’t really any better than Biggio, as the Gold Gloves seemed to indicate. Defensively, it was pretty darned close to a wash.

Put it all together, and through 2001, it was a dead heat:

Most people preferred Alomar. The sabermetric crowd liked Biggio. In some ways, this was a sort of litmus test: if you were a Biggio man, you were a thinking man. Because, to appreciate Biggio, you had to appreciate subtleties.

Going forward, Alomar looked like the better player. In the previous three years, he had been at the top of his game, hitting .323/.405/.515. Biggio, on the other hand, hand begun his decline, putting up a more modest .287/.385/.442 line. Plus, Alomar was only 33, and Biggio was 35. Alomar seemed like a sure thing for 3000 hits; Biggio, two years older and 240 hits behind, had only an outside shot.

What happened next surprised everyone: Alomar collapsed, and Biggio kept going for another six years. Alomar finished with 2724 hits; Biggio cleared 3000. Alomar, who becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame next year, is hardly assured of election. Biggio will cruise in on the first ballot.

Here’s how the pair performed after 2001:

Alomar and Biggio were dead-even through 2001. Does Biggio’s mediocre (but high-quantity) performance after 2001 outweigh Alomar’s poor, brief end? Does it put him on top? Here are their final career statistics:

But wait – we’ve left out two important (quantifiable) factors: peak and postseason. Their career totals are close, but how do they compare at their peaks? Conveniently, both players had 14 above-average seasons (based on WSAA). Here they are:

Alomar’s top five seasons edge Biggio’s, 80-74. But Biggio had more good years: his 6th-11th best seasons are all better than Alomar’s. Looking at each player’s top 10 seasons, Biggio leads, 117-109. In all 14 above-average seasons, Biggio has a 127-115 edge. In the end, Alomar’s only real peak advantage is that his third-best year is clearly superior to Biggio’s third-best. Biggio is essentially equal or better every other year.

I was ready to conclude here that Biggio was, in fact, the superior player. But take a look at both players in the postseason:

Yes, the sample size is relatively small, but it’s not tiny. Biggio played a quarter-season’s worth of games in October, and he was awful. Alomar had more than a third of a season in the playoffs and World Series, and he was excellent. Biggio has no World Series rings; Alomar has two, plus an ALCS MVP award 

This discrepancy prompted me to check the clutch stats for both players. And there, too, we find a significant difference:

High-Leverage Situations (according to Baseball-Reference.com)

Alomar: .313/.379/.450

Biggio: .275/.359/.407

“Late and Close”

Alomar: .297/.378/.419

Biggio: .256/.349/.393

Bases Loaded

Alomar: .386/.385/.620

Biggio: .213/.273/.365

Extra Innings

Alomar: .329/.416/.435

Biggio: .281/.396/.395

They’re closer in other permutations of “clutch,” but Biggio is always at least a little bit behind Alomar. All in all, Alomar was better in the clutch.

The verdict? Really, it’s too close to call. However, I’m going with Biggio. He had seven “big years” (10+ WSAA) to Alomar’s five. And while the two players were basically even through 2001, Biggio added a few more years as a contributing player, if not a star. The difference between the two is razor-thin, and they both, without question, belong in the Hall of Fame. Today, I think Biggio comes out slightly ahead. But ask me tomorrow, and I’ll probably pick Alomar.