View Poll Results: Hit Dog for the Hall?

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • Not a Chance!

    43 78.18%
  • Sure, I'll bite.

    12 21.82%
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 191

Thread: Bill Madlock

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    How is it that bad reputations, some of which appear in hindsight to be unfair to Madlock, manage to stick?
    Did you read the post of a few years back that provided a litany of Madlock's crimes against humanity?

    It sounded like a lot of people didn't like him, partly from his habit of punching out pitchers who threw at him. A guy whose own teammates goad a pitcher into hitting him, knowing his reaction, doesn't sound like someone who will get glowing references in others' interviews.

    Otherwise, he seems abrasive, but no worse than a lot of others who don't have the rep.

    So there's not a lot of motivation for a reporter or Bill James to do the work to check up on casual allegations and rumors to set the record straight. "If he wasn't malingering, he probably did something worse that he didn't get caught for."

    Thanks, csh, for your fine research.
    Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    795
    Yeah that was great csh, impressed. Maddog was a surly guy who got into trouble enough so that the press was never going to allow him to escape that image no matter what. Consider Dick Allen and James take on him vs Craig Wright. Perceptions and proquest, a good mix.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    How is it that bad reputations, some of which appear in hindsight to be unfair to Madlock, manage to stick?
    Hi Fuzzy,
    Good to see you here again (on this same thread) after all these years.

    Madlock's rep may be very much true, and what others here suppose about him quite valid. My little project from years ago is certainly is far, FAR from exhaustive, or mutually inclusive. I haven't read Madlock's biography (if one exists).

    Chipper Jones had the rep of sitting out games with "injuries" or malingering, generally, to improve his stats. Especially against the toughest pitching.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    Did you read the post of a few years back that provided a litany of Madlock's crimes against humanity?

    Thanks, csh, for your fine research.
    Quote Originally Posted by TomBodet View Post
    Yeah that was great csh, impressed. Maddog was a surly guy who got into trouble enough so that the press was never going to allow him to escape that image no matter what. Consider Dick Allen and James take on him vs Craig Wright. Perceptions and proquest, a good mix.
    Thanks, for the comps, guys. I really appreciate it.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    795
    Sometimes, in reading James or whomever, you bet the impression that to them batting crowns are either irrelevant or a bad thing. Winning 4 of them, no matter when or where, to me, is a big deal. Madlock merits a better rep As a Player than he has.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by TomBodet View Post
    Sometimes, in reading James or whomever, you bet the impression that to them batting crowns are either irrelevant or a bad thing. Winning 4 of them, no matter when or where, to me, is a big deal. Madlock merits a better rep As a Player than he has.
    Winning the crown itself as opposed to, say, hitting .xxx in a league with a BA of .yyy, is a distorting influence. It isn't like winning a pennant, where there's a qualitative difference between the winner and everyone else. The winner is better than the number two guy, who's better than the number 3 guy, maybe a lot better, but that difference isn't noticed.

    The winner one year may have nowhere near as good a BA year as the third runner up the next year.

    So if as some writers believe, players duck difficult pitchers or otherwise let their teams down in order to win batting titles, it would have not just a distorting but harmful influence on the game. Then you have the Lajoie Cobb stink, and some others. I don't believe thay actually amount to much in the long run. But "He won 4 batting crowns" isn't as important as, say, leading the league in BA over that period, which Madlock did by 10 points, .317 to .307 over Dave Parker. Hitting .317 from 1975 to 1983 is really something.
    Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

  7. #87
    When I was a kid, he signed a baseball and tossed it to me. That does not make him a HOFer, or even close to a HOFer, but he definitely wasn't a jerk.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northern plains
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    Consider the avatar. Jim Ray's fans must have been thrilled when Madlock showed up.

    In fairness to JR, this beats the Garvey for HOF campaign. I'd like to see an Eddie Stanky-Bill Madlock thread, though.
    Yeah no one ever considered Garvey a HOFer

    Hall of Fame
    1993 BBWAA (41.6%)
    1994 BBWAA (36.4%)
    1995 BBWAA (42.6%)
    1996 BBWAA (37.2%)
    1997 BBWAA (35.3%)
    1998 BBWAA (41.2%)
    1999 BBWAA (30.2%)
    2000 BBWAA (32.1%)
    2001 BBWAA (34.2%)
    2002 BBWAA (28.4%)
    2003 BBWAA (27.8%)
    2004 BBWAA (24.3%)
    2005 BBWAA (20.5%)
    2006 BBWAA (26.0%)
    2007 BBWAA (21.1%)

  9. #89
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northern plains
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    It was said earlier, with better power, better glove, better durability, he'd have a great case. But he didn't hit with much power, he didn't have a long career and his glove wasn't good. If JR's case is based upon his own distaste for how well Darrell Evans (who no one here actually endorses as a HOFer) is regarded here, Evans has some big advantages over Madlock once the impressive four batting titles is brought up. That does put Madlock in the argument based on what the HOF has actually done via elected players. He's well in place with some fine third basemen who are short of the mark, to me.
    SABR Matt
    Darrell Evans is absolutely a HOFer.
    Third base is a TERRIBLY weak position historically. Not many great players play there for long. Evans was one of the best who qualified at third.

    yankillaz
    hope that future advanced stats make of this man a HOF candidate at least by VC.

    Dude paskert
    I think Evans has a good case to get in the HOF but not an overpowering one,


    chicagowhitesox117
    don't think Evans is in the same grade as Byleven but he does have a pretty good case.

  10. #90
    Ok, one real endorsement by a current regular poster and two who says he deserves a closer look (hyperbolize that if you like). What are you looking at besides batting average to disqualify him so readily? There is a reason why he was the most sought-after free agent after the 1983 season. Plenty of teams saw what the Giants were missing-a good glove and good power guy who could help a team win, which he actually did. Not the whole site, which you seem to love to call out regardless of your sweeping perceptions not even close to being true. But what's the harm in living your own lie?

    I'd say the two are about even, with both deservedly on the outside. Which, to you, probably, means a vote for Evans only.
    Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Hart View Post
    Yeah no one ever considered Garvey a HOFer

    Hall of Fame
    1993 BBWAA (41.6%)
    1994 BBWAA (36.4%)
    1995 BBWAA (42.6%)
    1996 BBWAA (37.2%)
    1997 BBWAA (35.3%)
    1998 BBWAA (41.2%)
    1999 BBWAA (30.2%)
    2000 BBWAA (32.1%)
    2001 BBWAA (34.2%)
    2002 BBWAA (28.4%)
    2003 BBWAA (27.8%)
    2004 BBWAA (24.3%)
    2005 BBWAA (20.5%)
    2006 BBWAA (26.0%)
    2007 BBWAA (21.1%)
    Thanks, JR. Appreciated.

    Actually, Garvey got 44% at BBF. Ron Cey was the only other guy on the ballot, though.

    So, I take it "JR 'Buckner before Evans' Hart" is OK with you as a tribute nickname?
    Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 02-11-2013 at 03:50 PM.
    Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    795
    Winning 4 batting titles is winning 4 titles, yes context counts but don't oversell that. He did it Wrigley and did it in Pitt, over 8 yrs. To me too much is said about what's 'wrong' with Madlock and (and batting ave specialists in general) while what he did well gets ignored. There is something unfair, frankly, about how Maddog is treated historically, while he was his own worst enemy you'd hope the man at least got his due.

    As for Darrell Evans, I was a fan for ages, and wouldn't be sad if he or say Nettles made the Hall. Its not like it has to be an either/or proposition-you can like them and say Lansford/Madlock too. Evans was very good. So was Lansford.

    I think Vada Pinson is another unfairly neglected guy, ditto Willie Davis. Neither walked much
    so guess what you hear from the Warcrowd @ either more often than not? Pinson had power, speed, very good glove, you name it. Davis was all that and on a series of great teams. There's more to a guy's career than just their ave or walks. That's frankly insulting. You're not allowed to like Sam Rice, Mr. Manush or George Sisler in some circles. Boggles my mind. Same mindset had filtered into the assessments of say Garvey, Mike Young and Al Oliver. 'He no Walk. Hulk not like no walk. Hulk say Garvey suck. Hulk smash puny Rbiman take That Dawson--!'

    You'd think Garvey was David Segui or James Loney if you buy into this. Or Jim Rice was Rob Deer. Mike Young gets the same crap. But be sure to keep pushing Jimmy Wynn for the Hall.
    Egads.
    Last edited by TomBodet; 02-11-2013 at 05:32 PM.

  13. #93
    Tom, few players' reputations have benefited more than Willie Davis from the holistic approach of WAR. I think your criticism holds better for the posts here of some while back, when you actually had to dig around a while to find a broad based uberstat like WARP I, II, or III.

    Willie Davis was ranked 27 among center fielders by Bill James, who has been repeatedly eloquent about Davis's unfair reputation due to Chavez Ravine and the second dead ball era. Davis ranks 31 by OPS+, and I think that's no coincidence.

    WAR ranks Davis at 11 (EDIT 13, I initially specified defensive runs above zero) largely because he is ranked 8th in fielding runs, an evaluation no one heard of before WAR. I'm not going to weigh in on its reliability, but it is certainly greater than the three world series errors he made in one game that killed his defensive reputation forever.

    Anyway, it rates him just above Jim Wynn.

    Tom, you are a smart guy, but even a smart guy has to know the subject. Bringing up Davis as an example of neglect by WARriors is a giveaway.
    Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 02-11-2013 at 06:09 PM.
    Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

  14. #94
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northern plains
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    Thanks, JR. Appreciated.

    Actually, Garvey got 44% at BBF. Ron Cey was the only other guy on the ballot, though.

    So, I take it "JR 'Buckner before Evans' Hart" is OK with you as a tribute nickname?
    I have no problem with that.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by TomBodet View Post
    You're not allowed to like Sam Rice
    Tom, Sam Rice got 48 WAR becoming a regular at age 27. That's terrific. He has about 15% higher WAR than Rusty Staub, who played forever and walked all the time. What would it take to make you happy?

    I've noticed and mentioned a number of times when you've taken the WAR side in player comparisons without realizing it. The problem is, maintaining a position through sarcasm, exaggeration, and mockery makes it hard for you to change your mind in light of new information.

    Now, I think that Martin Heidigger is the most overrated philosopher of the 20th century, if not for all time. I've read enough about him to know his views, and I've seen his pernicious influence on other philosophers. But I haven't read anything by the little Nazi, and I don't plan to. Another thing I don't plan to do is go on the Continental Philosophy Fever forum and make fun of him and his fans who have actually--some of them, anyway--read his work.

    You and a couple of other guys have vowed not to take WAR seriously enough to actually study it, but at the same time you can't stop making fun of it and people who do understand it. This is really making yourself an enemy to the advancement of knowledge and does your intelligence no credit.
    Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,599
    A Martin Heidegger sighting!

    I'm a Camus guy, myself.

    Tom has the basis of a good insight. People are far too quick, (and far too deep), in their dismissal of too many high quality players who didn't walk as much as we'd like them to have in retrospect.
    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    18,592
    I'm just reiterating what a lot of people have already said, but Madlock was a very good player, though his production was somewhat "empty." Yes, he hit for average, but he did so while not producing big numbers in any other categories. He never scored 100 runs (team dependent in part, but also because he liked to steal himself into an out), he never had 100 RBI, he wasn't much of a power hitter or extra base hitter, he had speed but he got caught stealing a lot, his defense left a lot to be desired and his OBP eclipsed .400 only twice, despite posting such high averages. He didn't play a ton (averaging only 130 games a year from 1974 to 1985) and he spent the past four years of his career--from ages 33 to 37, years when a player can still be productive, in an unsavory decline in which he hit only .268 with a 101 OPS+.

    He wasn't a bad player, however. He struck out less than he walked, he slugged for a decent percentage from time to time, he performed well in the playoffs and he did get on base. But he never really led the league in anything outside of batting average (he paced the loop in GDP once and HBP once) and he was a bit inconsistent.

    A very good player, but not a Hall of Famer.

    EDIT: I say all that and, apparently, when I voted on this poll those many years ago, I went with "yes." It's amazing how attitudes and opinions change!
    Last edited by Cowtipper; 02-12-2013 at 03:59 AM.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Los Bravos View Post
    A Martin Heidegger sighting!

    I'm a Camus guy, myself.

    Tom has the basis of a good insight. People are far too quick, (and far too deep), in their dismissal of too many high quality players who didn't walk as much as we'd like them to have in retrospect.
    "Dot's an insight?" Who are these people? And where do they get their currrrrazy ideas?

    Looking at some of the recently revived posts, it's clear that before BBREF made its advanced stats available, a lot of the bickering here was between people who took into account bases on balls and run-scoring environments and people who didn't. One guy in particular, whose handle is all numbers, was relentless. The old guard didn't do too well, since their position wasn't tenable, although it still has some tenants.

    So the idea that bases on balls are overemphasized has a long history here, and an even longer one elsewhere. (I can recall a contemporary speaking scornfully of Duke Snider being glad to take a walk, of being relieved. Who knows what they said about Roy Thomas.)

    But with the wider availability of more detailed stats, in particular WAR , and in even more particular, its components and their raw ingredients, a much broader spectrum of previously overlooked or underrated abilities has been quantified and is now easily available. So reading a burlesque of the WAR-numerate as inarticulate Neanderthals who can't see beyond bases on balls, well, that strikes me as exactly wrong, a confusion whose source I believe I understand.

    When I think of people whose player analyses resemble the Hulk's, the names that come to mind are not the denizens of the Stats forum: Brett, or ubiquitous, or filihok, or Matthew C, or DNC, or Dr. Strangelove, or a bunch of other guys who hash things out there. And certainly not, on the other side, Tom. In fact, it's from these guys that I learn stuff. Sometimes one or two of them might be a little, ummm, curt, but nothing compared to some of the raw exchanges that have gone down here, on this very thread.

    I realize most of those tirades are just venting, and it's pompous and officious of me to take it seriously, but I can't help it. "It's a veakness."
    Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,599
    Well, I did write "the basis of a good insight", so...

    All I mean is that there is a tendency among some people here to take the basic point (which I think everybody can endorse) that drawing walks and getting on base is a valuable thing in and of itself and project it into the past.

    In doing so, they ignore a basic fact that is illustrated by that same Snider anecdote (which is in The Boys of Summer) and all of the contemporary criticism of Ted Williams: drawing walks was, until relatively recently, seen not only as sometthing that held less value than we now know that it does, it was actively disdained, especially for a guy with power. Seen as more of an abdication of responsibilty than anything else.
    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    Ok, one real endorsement by a current regular poster and two who says he deserves a closer look (hyperbolize that if you like). What are you looking at besides batting average to disqualify him so readily? There is a reason why he was the most sought-after free agent after the 1983 season. Plenty of teams saw what the Giants were missing-a good glove and good power guy who could help a team win, which he actually did. Not the whole site, which you seem to love to call out regardless of your sweeping perceptions not even close to being true. But what's the harm in living your own lie?

    I'd say the two are about even, with both deservedly on the outside. Which, to you, probably, means a vote for Evans only.
    I just don't get why all of you support Darrel Evans but not Howard Johnson. I mean, those 30-30 seasons count for something, right, plus he had a 6.8 WAR season whereas Madlock was only a 5.9 ?

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •