Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Bill Madlock

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    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, 02:50 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

    Comment


    • #92
      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, 04:32 PM.

      Comment


      • #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, 05:09 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

        Comment


        • #94
          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.
          This week's Giant

          #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

          Comment


          • #95
            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

            Comment


            • #96
              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.
              "It's like watching a Western. It's slow, so you can watch the chess moves. Nothing seems to happen, but when it goes down, it goes down big." - Howard Bryant

              3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

              Comment


              • #97
                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, 02:59 AM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    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.
                    "It's like watching a Western. It's slow, so you can watch the chess moves. Nothing seems to happen, but when it goes down, it goes down big." - Howard Bryant

                    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                    Comment


                    • 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 ?

                      Comment


                      • Because "Howdy Doody" is a much better nickname than "HoJo"
                        "It's like watching a Western. It's slow, so you can watch the chess moves. Nothing seems to happen, but when it goes down, it goes down big." - Howard Bryant

                        3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
                          Because "Howdy Doody" is a much better nickname than "HoJo"
                          If you take Hojo's best three and Mad Dog's best three, you have someone still not as good as Darrell Evans:

                          Darrel Evans best 6: 32.1

                          Howard Johnson's best 3 + Bill Madlock's best 3: 29.4

                          And Darrell Evans is not a glowing HOF candidate. This thread is entertaining, though.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
                            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.
                            Right, so we can understand why Sisler hardly walked and was lauded for that. And it would be terrifically unfair to expect him to figure out, like Williams, that he could improve his hitting by increasing his BB. (If he even could. There isn't any BB sauce you can sprinkle on your batting. You may become more patient without being able to become more selective, and your strikeouts soar and your production goes down.) On the other hand, Jack Fournier really was a better hitter per P/A because he had more power and walked more.

                            We can't scoff at the physicians before the invention of the microscope for treating everyone for everything by purging, blistering, bleeding them, and poisoning them with mercury. They didn't know any better. They had their own criteria for distinguishing good doctors from incompetents, even though the efficacy of a treatment was due to chance. But that doesn't make the "good" doctors effective, simply because they were doing right by their own lights.

                            So we don't "blame" batters for not taking a walk, but we don't pretend that taking a walk was bad strategy, and I think we should tip our hats to players who were intelligent or imaginative enough to see the gaps in the contemporary strategies and exploit them.
                            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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
                              Because "Howdy Doody" is a much better nickname than "HoJo"
                              Why was Evans called that? I see it listed in BBREF as his nickname, so I guess it wasn't just a taunt.

                              Edit: Never mind. I just took a look at a Darrell Evans picture gallery.
                              Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 02-12-2013, 05:38 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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                                If you take Hojo's best three and Mad Dog's best three, you have someone still not as good as Darrell Evans:

                                Darrel Evans best 6: 32.1

                                Howard Johnson's best 3 + Bill Madlock's best 3: 29.4

                                And Darrell Evans is not a glowing HOF candidate. This thread is entertaining, though.
                                well lock the thread,

                                WAR is an infallible stat

                                discussion over
                                This week's Giant

                                #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X