Bill Madlock

[JR Hart]

I'm not going to dispute that there might be a misguided soul or three on this site that like WAR and Tenace for the HOF. However, I've run and participated in numerous projects, and I've never recorded a vote for him for the Hall, and can't say I even recall such a vote in any of the projects I participated in. Frankly, your comment sounds a lot to me like someone who rejects all organized religion because of all the evil done in the name of God/Allah/whatever by some people with a tremendous misunderstanding of the religion they profess to be representing.

Addendum: I see Tenace is supported by a whopping 3 of the 31 people who voted in the single ballot HOF project.

In the comparing Halls of Fame thread,Tenace is listed in 2 Halls, The Hall of Stats, and the The WAA Hall of Fame.

This is also posted in the single ballot HOF thread:

STLCards2, I'm not trying to be hyper-critical here (rather I just want to start a baseball debate), but I was wondering how you could possibly justify placing Gene Tenace in the Hall of Fame while removing such greats as Pie Traynor, Heinie Manush, and Mickey Welch? Does the 1972 World Series hold that much sway in your vote, or are there other reasons that I'm missing? This is coming from someone who was a big fan of Tenace's, by the way. The choice just seems perplexing to me.

Advanced metrics (esp. WAR) show Tennace as one of the 11-12 greatest catcher ever, and guys like Manush and Traynor being vastly overrated (I am researching to see if WAR is whiffing on Traynor - I wouldn't be surprised if I don't add him back in soon). Welch is not a guy who a large majority of guys feel is a HOFer anyway - without the 300 wins, he wouldn't be considered close. A 112 ERA+ with the number of innings he threw in that era is nothing remarkable. If Welch, why not King or McCormick? I didn't know Manush was supported by many at all. And Tennace is very borderline for me - I could take him out.

[Freakshow]

Well, if we use just one stat,he is.

So just where does Madlock rank in the one stat that matters?

Rk              Player   BA OPS+ WAR/pos    PA From   To
1          John McGraw .334  135    44.1  4940 1891 1906 H
2           Wade Boggs .328  131    88.3 10740 1982 1999 H
3          Pie Traynor .320  107    33.8  8297 1920 1937 H
4         Deacon White .312  127    44.2  6973 1871 1890 H
5    Freddie Lindstrom .311  110    26.8  6108 1924 1936 H
6          Denny Lyons .310  139    33.2  5029 1885 1897
7       Home Run Baker .307  135    59.5  6663 1908 1922 H
8          George Kell .306  112    34.5  7529 1943 1957 H
9         George Brett .305  135    84.0 11625 1973 1993 H
10        Bill Madlock .305  123    35.1  7372 1973 1987
11       Chipper Jones .303  141    81.5 10614 1993 2012
12        David Wright .301  135    39.1  5453 2004 2012
13           Stan Hack .301  119    50.7  8508 1932 1947
14      Alex Rodriguez .300  143   111.4 11163 1994 2012

[1905 Giants]

Here's what Willie Stargell had to say about Madlock in "The Greatest Team of All Time" (Copyright 1994).

"Madlock wins Stargell's endorsement as the most underrated player of his era. 'The man won batting championships and was a great clutch hitter. He was also a leader in the clubhouse, although a lot of front office people never liked him because he always said what was on his mind.'"

[Los Bravos]

I can't speak for anyone else but that statement carries a lot of weight with me.

[Freakshow]

Here's what Willie Stargell had to say about Madlock ... "he always said what was on his mind.'"

Shooting off at the mouth, lacking discretion in the spoken word..not usually a positive thing.

And do you have any quotes of Stargell saying something bad about a teammate?

[Cowtipper]

WAR is an interesting utility that can be used in conjunction with other stats, including traditional and SABR, though it is far from a be-all-end-all (as many of its most fervent fans around here may like it to be [they don't say that, but the fact that they reference that stat almost exclusively indicates it]). In terms of Gene Tenace, perhaps WAR overrates him. In terms of Bill Madlock, I think it underrates him. Baseball players are not computer printouts of numbers, they are human beings performing a task, which means human observation is needed to fully and completely analyze the task they are performing.

Though Madlock is not a Hall of Fame baseball player, he was good at performing within his skillset--making contact with the ball. Modern baseball analysis seems to overrate the walk, but it also underrates the ability to not strike out frequently, which is something Madlock did. I think that adds to his value (though I must wonder if, on occasion, he would have been better to strikeout than to hit into a double play, which he did a bit).

It shouldn't be forgotten that Madlock also hit when it counted. He had a .305 batting average with runners in scoring position, and better yet, he hit .390 with the bases loaded. With runners on second and third, he hit .354. He hit .314 in tie games, nine points higher than his career average--in fact, he was a better hitter in clutch situations than when his team had the lead, as his batting average during times they were ahead, he hit only .285.

(Judging by his career performance, I think he may have been a better #2 hitter as opposed to #3 hitter, too.)

[jalbright]

In the comparing Halls of Fame thread,Tenace is listed in 2 Halls, The Hall of Stats, and the The WAA Hall of Fame.

This is also posted in the single ballot HOF thread:

STLCards2, I'm not trying to be hyper-critical here (rather I just want to start a baseball debate), but I was wondering how you could possibly justify placing Gene Tenace in the Hall of Fame while removing such greats as Pie Traynor, Heinie Manush, and Mickey Welch? Does the 1972 World Series hold that much sway in your vote, or are there other reasons that I'm missing? This is coming from someone who was a big fan of Tenace's, by the way. The choice just seems perplexing to me.

Advanced metrics (esp. WAR) show Tennace as one of the 11-12 greatest catcher ever, and guys like Manush and Traynor being vastly overrated (I am researching to see if WAR is whiffing on Traynor - I wouldn't be surprised if I don't add him back in soon). Welch is not a guy who a large majority of guys feel is a HOFer anyway - without the 300 wins, he wouldn't be considered close. A 112 ERA+ with the number of innings he threw in that era is nothing remarkable. If Welch, why not King or McCormick? I didn't know Manush was supported by many at all. And Tennace is very borderline for me - I could take him out.

One of the big problems with Tenace is, was he really a catcher? He was about half catcher and half 1B/other. If he had been exclusively a catcher, I'd consider his candidacy more closely--but with the defensive profile he presents, I think the fact he is largely ignored in HOF disucssions is appropriate.

[Freakshow]

One of the big problems with Tenace is, was he really a catcher? He was about half catcher and half 1B/other. If he had been exclusively a catcher, I'd consider his candidacy more closely--but with the defensive profile he presents, I think the fact he is largely ignored in HOF disucssions is appropriate.

Yeah, that's the crux the issue of making Tenace a hall of famer: he didn't catch enough to get a full "catcher boost", less than 900 games. In only four seasons was he his team's #1 catcher (75-77-79-80).

Players within ten defensive games of Tenace:

Rank Player (yrs, age) Def. Games as C
144. Dave Valle (13) 902
----Wes Westrum (11) 902
146. Buck Rodgers (9) 895
147. Russell Martin (7, 29) 894
----Charlie Moore (15) 894
----Greg Myers (18) 894
150. Hank Gowdy (17) 893
151. Chad Kreuter (16) 892
----Gene Tenace (15) 892
153. Otto Miller (13) 890
154. Ray Fosse (12) 889
155. Michael Barrett (12) 885
----Dave Duncan (11) 885

[1905 Giants]

Shooting off at the mouth, lacking discretion in the spoken word..not usually a positive thing.

And do you have any quotes of Stargell saying something bad about a teammate?

Fair points.

[willshad]

Tenace has 44.3 WAR. Even for a catcher, this is a low amount for people to consider the player a HOFer. Who said WAR makes Tenace out to be HOFer?

[jalbright]

Tenace has 44.3 WAR. Even for a catcher, this is a low amount for people to consider the player a HOFer. Who said WAR makes Tenace out to be HOFer?

WAR is tough on catchers, and in my view get about 7/8 of what they should compared to other positions. That means giving a full-time catcher a boost of about 1/7 of his WAR, which sneaks him into low HOF territory. But Tenace was half catcher half 1B/DH/corner OF, which doesn't merit the same adjustment.

[Jackaroo Dave]

WAR is an interesting utility that can be used in conjunction with other stats, including traditional and SABR, though it is far from a be-all-end-all (as many of its most fervent fans around here may like it to be [they don't say that, but the fact that they reference that stat almost exclusively indicates it].

I don't think it indicates that at all, Cowtipper. I think that indicates that WAR and its components are available on the player page of every major leaguer in MLB history, that WAR totals for any group of players can be compiled with a few keystrokes, and of the single stats of which those are true, it by far incorporates the most and broadest quantitative information. Additional mind reading isn't necessary to account for its popularity.

What I very rarely see here is someone posting, say, on base average, stolen bases, and runs scored and then looking at percentage of extra bases taken. it happens, but not often. Usually if someone looks at advanced stats, it's someone who looks at WAR for a quick and dirty overview.

And frankly, in a lot of cases, say Bottomley v McGriff, that's all that's necessary. Granted, rating players is not what the stat is designed for, but in doing so, it's useful sometimes to know if someone is way ahead on quantifiable measures of runs accounted for.

[TomBodet]

Gene Tenace a Hof?! Mickey Tettleton better hear about this!

The sons of Manush are Outraged.

All you need to know @Madlock in the post season-'79, '85.

[1905 Giants]

Pros in Madlock's Career:
-2000+ Hits
-.305 Lifetime Average
-4 Batting Championships
-123 OPS+
-3 time All-Star
-1975 AS MVP
-Walked more than he struck out.
-1 5+ WAR Seasons (5.9 in '82)
-.308 lifetime hitter in postseason
-In the 1985 NCLS went .333/.333/.750 in 24 ABs with 3 HRs and 7 RBIs.

I know there's negatives you could bring up, but I just want to give the man a little credit.

[bluesky5]

Gene Tenace a Hof?! Mickey Tettleton better hear about this!

The sons of Manush are Outraged.

All you need to know @Madlock in the post season-'79, '85.

Are you for or against Madlock?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pros in Madlock's Career:
-2000+ Hits
-.305 Lifetime Average
-4 Batting Championships
-123 OPS+
-3 time All-Star
-1975 AS MVP
-Walked more than he struck out.
-1 5+ WAR Seasons (5.9 in '82)
-.308 lifetime hitter in postseason
-In the 1985 NCLS went .333/.333/.750 in 24 ABs with 3 HRs and 7 RBIs.

I know there's negatives you could bring up, but I just want to give the man a little credit.

Madlock's case for the HOF is the kind of case a fan would make in a letter to The Sporting News or Baseball Digest. That's not a knock; such letters were usually more well-reasoned than some of the arguments that involve bizarre groupings.

I'm normally biased against a guy who pops off a lot, but I am beginning to see that a degree of the negative image of Madlock as a person has been overstated. There is not a lot of evidence to show that Madlock caused his teams to underperform, and a decent degree of evidence that shows Madlock as a guy that helped his teams win.