Bill Madlock

[abolishthedh]

Mad Dog Bill Madlock won batting titles in 1975, 1976, 1981 and 1983. Yet he is seldom mentioned as Hall worthy. IMO, that is with good reason because Madlock was a subpar 3B. However, I wondered what your views were, and what other players you may know of with four or more batting titles and yet isn't in the Hall.

[santotohof]

he was an awesome hitter but really burned bright for a short time.I loved seeing Mad Dog come to the plate

[J W]

There are three players who score over 900 in similarity with Madlock: Carney Lansford, Pinky Higgins, and George Kell. They are all third basemen, and Kell is in the HOF.

- He was a 3-time All Star. That doesn't mean much one way or the other.

- He had 2 top tens in MVP voting (6th, 8th). Not too impressive by HOF standards.

- His test scores read: BI-16, GI-55, ST-30.9, MN-69.0. His Black Ink score is almost entirely attributed to his batting titles. His next best score, his monitor score of 69, is 243rd all-time.

- George Kell's test scores: BI-16, GI-93, ST-28.7, MN-90.0. While there is a dearth of third basemen in the Hall, Kell is generally considered a miscue.

- Madlock stole 174 bases but was caught 90 times.

...so, since Madlock was a "subpar 3B", that means he was a terrific hitter for average, and that's about it. For any shot at the HOF, he would've needed to produce a lot more quality at-bats past age 32. As it is, there are way too many players like Mad Dog for him to be anything special.

[julusnc]

Great Hitter but he played his career in the same league as the greatest third baseman of all time.

Madlock was an ALL-Star not a Hall of Famer.

[PumpsieGreen]

All that Bill Madlock could do was win the batting title, nothing else. I really dislike one dimentional players like Madlock. Not worth my Cooperstown consideration.

Pumpsie

[leecemark]

If Madlock had played anytime in the first half of the century his 4 batting titles would absolutely have gotten him in the Hall of Fame. There are a bucket full of high average hitters from the 20s and 30s in the Hall who weren't as good as Madlock. Of course, they were all bad selections and we know better now. I don't have Madlock amoung the 25 best 3Bs. His lack of support for the Hall is one of the clearest signs that we are making progress in identifying truely Hall worthy palyers.

[Cougar]

Not much to add here. There are at least a dozen 3b alone who are much better qualified than Madlock. He is an All-Star caliber player, not a HOF caliber player.

[The Commissioner]

The key problem with Madlock is that despite having played for fifteen seasons, he had so realtively few at bats. A lot of you really are overlooking how much weight should be given to his Hall credentials based on having garnered four batting titles. I don't care what era he played in, under what circumstances that is extraordinary and simply can't be summarily brushed aside. However, having said that, he simply doesn't have the other numbers to merit consideration. His 4 batting titles and .305 career batting average are great. Had he done that with 2500+ hits, I'd say his Hall worthiness would have increased exponentially. Also had he either 1000+ runs scored or runs batted in to go with that, I'd say he would be a lot more worthy. However, not only does he not have 1000+ in either category, but he never even had 100+ in a season for either.

Once again, if you really want to look at why he is on the outside looking in, it goes back to lack of career at bats. Consider this, while he did win four batting titles, he only placed in the top 10 in a season for hits three times!!! Out of curiosity, can anyone else name other player or players that have more batting titles than top ten finishes in hits? !?

[abolishthedh]

Commiss: Since starting the thread I have thought of a good analogy between Madlock and Tony Oliva, who won three batting titles. Oliva, however, was much more consistent as a hitter, because he finished in the top ten in hits 8 times in 15 seasons.

Here's the comparison:

Madlock: 1806 g, 6594 AB, 920 R, 2008 Hits, 348 2B, 163 HR, 860 BI, .305 BA, .442 SLG

Oliva: 1676 g, 6301 AB, 870 R, 1917 Hits, 329 2B, 220 HR, 947 BI, .304 BA, .476 SLG

The analogy is close, but not exact. Oliva had significantly more power. His Runs Created is 1058 on 4649 outs, while Madlock's RC is 1064 on 4971 outs.

[Cougar]

This is quite a coincidence, but I've got to believe it's spurious.

Oliva played in the run starved 60's and early 70's; Madlock in the 70's and 80's.

Oliva led the league in hits five times, in doubles four times, in runs once, in total bases once, in slugging once, in extra base hits once, in sacrifice flies once, and in hit by pitch once, in addition to his three batting titles. Madlock, in addition to his four batting titles, also led the league in hit by pitch once.

Oliva was a GG right fielder, Madlock an ordinary 3b.

I could go on, but I trust you see that this correlation just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

[Chadwick]

Oliva has an argument for election. Madlock doesn't.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Oliva has an argument for election. Madlock doesn't.

Madlock has an argument, but he also has to deal with being behind Brett, Schmidt, Nettles, Evans, and possibly others, while as a player.

Madlock was perceived as a selfish player who grew fat in mid-career. He was done at 36.

[538280]

4 batting titles is nice, but Madlock was a one dimensional offensive player, a brutal fielding 3Bman, and had a reputation as a selfish player. Not even close IMO.

[Yankwood]

He is a living, walking example, along with Dale Murphy and others, of why we shouldn't automatically assume players are going to the Hall of Fame after 7 or so really good years.

[leecemark]

--Madlock couldn't hold Murphy's jock (not that he'd want to ).