View Poll Results: Hit Dog for the Hall?

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

    44 78.57%
  • Sure, I'll bite.

    12 21.43%
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 181 to 191 of 191

Thread: Bill Madlock

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    18,590
    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.)

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,923
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Hart View Post
    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.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    D-town, MI
    Posts
    6,677
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    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
    Last edited by Freakshow; 02-25-2013 at 09:13 AM.
    Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

    Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sammamish, WA
    Posts
    5,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakshow View Post
    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.
    “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

    "Fill in any figure you want for that boy [Mantle]. Whatever the figure, it's a deal." - Branch Rickey

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    6,568
    Blog Entries
    1
    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?

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,923
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by willshad View Post
    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.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowtipper View Post
    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.
    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

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    795
    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.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sammamish, WA
    Posts
    5,271
    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.
    “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

    "Fill in any figure you want for that boy [Mantle]. Whatever the figure, it's a deal." - Branch Rickey

  10. #190
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,362
    Quote Originally Posted by TomBodet View Post
    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?
    "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

  11. #191
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Under the Knickerbocker beer sign at the Polo Grounds
    Posts
    5,895
    Quote Originally Posted by 1905 Giants View Post
    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.
    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

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
  •