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.

[Brad Harris]

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;) ).

[Yankwood]

--Madlock couldn't hold Murphy's jock (not that he'd want to;) ).How do you know?

[rugbyfreak]

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.

Right you are, Cougar. Oliva was a much better all-around player (before his knees went) and he had more power. Madlock is very nearly a unique case, and someone I have done a 180 on. Whereas I used to tout him for the HOF (or at least more consideration), it used to baffle me why he never got barely any votes. I knew from seeing him personally about his very ordinary (OK, sub-par) defense, but that hadn't stopped a bunch of others from getting in. After all, I reasoned, FOUR batting titles demands to be looked at. There have been numerous lucky one-time BA winners throughout history, but four? That puts him in a very elite category. You can't get lucky like that four times. He had also been outstanding in his only WS ('79 Pirates, .375).

Then I started hearing what a first-class hump he had been personally, hence being traded four times, including once ('77) immediately after a batting title. I still wasn't convinced, though, partly because I don't place much emphasis on the personal stuff, as long as it's nothing illegal or immoral, and partly because the HOF has plenty of horse's fannies in their midst. Also, we all know that personal stuff is very much a factor to many of the voters, which is not to their credit but very real nonetheless.

Then I mined a bit deeper into his numbers, and I realized it's true: Really, the batting titles are all he has, and only three times in his entire career was he even top 10 in hits (6th being his best). When had that ever happened to a perennial batting leader before? Maybe never. Add to that his lack of power (lifetime .442 SLG, only one season over.500), and lack of production (never 100 RBI or runs), and you now have as unimpressive a four-time BA winner as you could possibly invent.

The turning of the worm was now complete: I no longer tout him for the Hall. He also stands as Exhibit A for all SABER guys who have been saying that BA is an outdated and overrated standard with which to rate a player.

[flash143817]

Is there anyone with more batting titles than Madlock not in the HOF?


I haven't studied his case enough to really decide yes or no on him. One thing I did notice though: he posted a 123 career OPS+. That is pretty solid by a 3Bman. His 3 peak OPS+ were 154, 150, and 147. He might not have had great power, but he was hitting around 15 HR a season and he was a decent walker. He appears to have an argument as being a HOF-quality hitter as a 3Bman. Now if defense and baserunning are enough to keep him out, then so be it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is there anyone with more batting titles than Madlock not in the HOF?


I haven't studied his case enough to really decide yes or no on him. One thing I did notice though: he posted a 123 career OPS+. That is pretty solid by a 3Bman. His 3 peak OPS+ were 154, 150, and 147. He might not have had great power, but he was hitting around 15 HR a season and he was a decent walker. He appears to have an argument as being a HOF-quality hitter as a 3Bman. Now if defense and baserunning are enough to keep him out, then so be it.

To answer your question: Madlock is the only four time batting champion not in the HOF. There are some things that need to be pointed out about this, however:

1. One of those batting championships was the strike-shortened 1981 season
2. Madlock was obsessed with winning the batting title and had a reputation for faking injuries and not playing to maintain his batting title lead

Madlock's defensive deficiencies are, IMO, overstated. He wasn't a Gold Glove-caliber third baseman, but he was good enough to stay on the position for his entire career. Madlock's only position shift was when he moved to SECOND base, a more difficult position, the position he played while with the San Francisco Giants.

Having said that Madlock was perceived as a selfish player (true) and was done at age 36 (also true) in a previous post, and calling him a batting title malingerer in this one, I do believe that there is a need to mitigate this more than a little bit:

(A) Madlock was a participant on winning teams. The 1979 Pirates won it all. The 1983 Pirates, a horrible team which overperformed to finish 6 games out of first, did so with Madlock being the team's big star on the field (he won his last batting title, while Parker and a few others were still coked up). The 1978 Giants were a team that went from 12 games under .500 to 16 games over .500, with Madlock making a key position shift to a more difficult position.

(B) Madlock was the guy who kept the Pirates together following the retirement of Stargell and the demise of the cocaine crowd on that team; he wasn't part of the nose candy bandits, and, from 1980-83, was the best player on the Pirates.

If there were no Mike Schmidt, no George Brett, and no Wade Boggs playing while Madlock was active, I believe he would have a better case. On the other hand, the same could be said about Ron Cey, Tim Wallach, Gary Gaetti, Graig Nettles, Toby Harrah, Doug DeCinces, Darrell Evans, maybe a few others. Of this crowd, I rank Madlock behind Evans, Nettles and Cey. I rank Madlock ahead of Harrah and DeCinces (although DeCinces had a higher peak value, IMO), about even with Gaetti and Wallach although I tend to give both Wallach and Gaetti the edge, based on superior defense, which enabled them to have longer careers. As for non-contemporaries, I would rate Bob Elliott and Robin Ventura ahead of Madlock (not to mention Santo, Boyer, and Hack). I view Madlock being to offense what Heine Groh is to defense in the HOF third baseman discussion, for lack of a better quick description.

[csh19792001]

To answer your question: Madlock is the only four time batting champion not in the HOF. There are some things that need to be pointed out about this, however:

1. One of those batting championships was the strike-shortened 1981 season
2. Madlock was obsessed with winning the batting title and had a reputation for faking injuries and not playing to maintain his batting title lead


Fuzzy-

Nice work. I like your posting style- fair, and even handed. You're doing the history justice by trying to present all sides of the story.

However, regarding the batting titles/missing games position, someone levied the claim awhile back that:

I've read numerous times that Madlock would intentionally sit himself against tough pitchers and towards the end of the season because all he cared about was winning that batting crown.

In other words, Madlock hurt his teams with his fervent desire to win batting crowns. It worked-he won four batting titles, but in reality he hurt his teams en route to that rather than helped them.

I presumed this poster was working entirely off of one small blurb in the New James Abstact about Madlock's reputation for intentionally sitting out games to win batting titles. So I went back to assess the validity of this claim and did some in depth empirical reserach on Proquest, going through the boxes/wrapups. I knew nothing about Madlock aside from his statistics, so I went in tabula rasa. Here's what I found/composed:

I looked in depth at 1975, the year Madlock won his first batting title. I used Proquest to access the wrapups/boxscores to examine why he missed games, and then correlated that with the game logs at retrosheet to see when he missed time, the ebb and flow of his average and that of his competitors, and who was pitching when he missed games. I queried 7 of the largest national newspapers and also APS Online (which houses thousands of periodicals). It's very easy to unyieldingly follow Bill James and make blanket statements as you did. In point of fact, though, Madlock was a victim of several injuries/incidents which conspired to cause him to miss lots of games.

Madlock severely sprained his ankle on May 5, 1974- the Chicago Tribune has a picture of the incident- and his foot is sideways upon impact at 1st base. This is germane because it never healed properly, gave him chronic pain, and was probably just one of the factors that caused him to miss so many games and forced him into early retirement.

Madlock tore his hip flexor in late June, 1975. The doctor who examined him listed his condition as "dubious at best". The Tribune on July 4th, 1975 noted that Madlock, hitting .351, vetoed the idea of sitting out the rest of the year injured and taking his chances on a batting title.

He fractured his thumb on Sept 11th, 1975 on a high and tight fastball from Bruce Kison of the Pirates. He was already serving a three day suspension due to a run in with umpire Jerry Dale. Another bunch of games missed due to injury.

Madlock had a pinch hit trial at bat on the 21st, and jumped back into the lineup on the 24th to face Tom Seaver, who pitched 10 shutout innings of 3 hit ball (Seaver's no hit bid was foiled in the 9th inning and made headlines in every newspaper in the country). Had Madlock been malingering or obsessed with the batting title, wouldn't he have sat out against the greatest pitcher in baseball (especially with a healing fracture)?

1976:
In September of 1976, Madlock had a cyst removed from his right knee, before departing to attend the funeral of his grandfather who had apparently raised him. And there isn't evidence that his absence was indicative of purposeful absenteeism; while he was out, the Pirates faced lousy, nondescript pitchers for San Diego and Montreal.

Madlock missed a series of games in late September of 1976- he was mugged and hospitalized on Sept. 24th, and suffered a concussion on the back of his skull outside a NYC hotel. I attached the account of the incident as detailed by both The Tribune and The New York Times. He was admitted to Northwestern Memorial Hospital after the attack.

And in case you consider that he might have extended his time on the DL to win the batting title, consider that Madlock was trailing Ken Griffey Sr. at the time of the incident.

In fact, on the last day of the season, with he and Griffey in a virtual deadlock, Griffey decided to sit out and try to preserve the lead, and Madlock played, going 4-4 to capture the title.

The Chicago Tribune related the entire saga:

"In the sixth off Dale Murray, Madlock pulled his fourth single over the head of Garrett. Word by now had reached Chicago that Griffey hadn't played, but the fourth hit by Madlock lifted his average to .3385 and Griffey was at .3375 so Ken had to get off the bench""Griffey, attempting to back into the title, was withheld from the lineup in Cincinnati. Then he fanned as a pinch hitter in a vain attempt to catch Madlock" (this was Griffey's final AB of the season)

It's infinitely easier and less cognitively taxing to endlessly reproduce the ideas of moguls like Bill James and presume them to be true, to go on reputation, or to base conclusions of off naked numbers ex post facto....but these quick and dirty routes often lead to erroneous conclusions. This is simply one discrete case where (at least in the batting title seasons I had the time to research) the facts belie the commonly held misperception, which has seemingly been propagated and blown out of proportion over time.

[leecemark]

--That was some nice research Chris and the reasons why Madlock missed so much playing may well be less sinister than is often assumed. The fact does remain that Madlock could be counted on to miss games with alarming frequency. Thus both his seasonal and career counting stats are far less impressive than is rate stats. That said, he would certainly be a Hall of Famer if he had played in the 1920s or 30s. Unfortunately for him he played at a time when the depth of talent at 3B was probably higher than at any other time in history. He wasn't as good (or at least didn't accomplish as much) as the 3 contemporaries who are in Cooperstown and at least that mnay who aren't.

[cavalier1968]

To answer your question: Madlock is the only four time batting champion not in the HOF. There are some things that need to be pointed out about this, however:

1. One of those batting championships was the strike-shortened 1981 season
2. Madlock was obsessed with winning the batting title and had a reputation for faking injuries and not playing to maintain his batting title lead

Madlock's defensive deficiencies are, IMO, overstated. He wasn't a Gold Glove-caliber third baseman, but he was good enough to stay on the position for his entire career. Madlock's only position shift was when he moved to SECOND base, a more difficult position, the position he played while with the San Francisco Giants.

Having said that Madlock was perceived as a selfish player (true) and was done at age 36 (also true) in a previous post, and calling him a batting title malingerer in this one, I do believe that there is a need to mitigate this more than a little bit:

(A) Madlock was a participant on winning teams. The 1979 Pirates won it all. The 1983 Pirates, a horrible team which overperformed to finish 6 games out of first, did so with Madlock being the team's big star on the field (he won his last batting title, while Parker and a few others were still coked up). The 1978 Giants were a team that went from 12 games under .500 to 16 games over .500, with Madlock making a key position shift to a more difficult position.

(B) Madlock was the guy who kept the Pirates together following the retirement of Stargell and the demise of the cocaine crowd on that team; he wasn't part of the nose candy bandits, and, from 1980-83, was the best player on the Pirates.

If there were no Mike Schmidt, no George Brett, and no Wade Boggs playing while Madlock was active, I believe he would have a better case. On the other hand, the same could be said about Ron Cey, Tim Wallach, Gary Gaetti, Graig Nettles, Toby Harrah, Doug DeCinces, Darrell Evans, maybe a few others. Of this crowd, I rank Madlock behind Evans, Nettles and Cey. I rank Madlock ahead of Harrah and DeCinces (although DeCinces had a higher peak value, IMO), about even with Gaetti and Wallach although I tend to give both Wallach and Gaetti the edge, based on superior defense, which enabled them to have longer careers. As for non-contemporaries, I would rate Bob Elliott and Robin Ventura ahead of Madlock (not to mention Santo, Boyer, and Hack). I view Madlock being to offense what Heine Groh is to defense in the HOF third baseman discussion, for lack of a better quick description.

Buddy Bell was better than many on your list.....

Cav

[Fuzzy Bear]

Buddy Bell was better than many on your list.....

Cav

I forgot about Buddy Bell, and, yes, he was better than many, if not all, of the 3B I had listed.

Bell has a case for the HOF, although he's not going to go. Given how stingy the HOF is in selecting third basemen, I can't really say that he'd be better than any 3B already in, but he's better than a whole host of players in the HOF (which, in and of itself, is not an argument for enshrinement, of course).

I found the data on Madlock's injuries interesting. The reputation he had/has for jakng and malingering and begging out to preserve batting titles is not the invention of Bill James. Whether or not it was based in fact, exaggeration, or fantasy is another issue; the REPUTATION was real, and it preceded Bill James. It was something I remember from when Madlock was active; constant "sources" saying that Madlock only cared about winning the batting title, etc.

Madlock was not popular with his peers (although he wasn't Dick Allen or Reggie Jackson, guys who invited polarization and outright hatred) and he was certainly no Milton Bradley or Jeff Kent (guys that no one seems to like). It is hard to see why this situation came about. I am not entirely surprised that Madlock's REPUTATION may be overblown; even built totally on sand, but his reputation was a fact of his career, and a reflection of his not always being held in high esteem. (His nickname was "Mad Dog", and one can speculate the reasons as to how he came about that.)

Another thing about Madlock I remember is that for a guy with 4 batting titles, he was never regarded as a key player or a go-to guy. Maybe I'm mistaken about this, but he was never viewed as a key star on any of his teams. This, to me, seemed odd; a guy wih 4 batting titles being NOT a big name, especially when one conidered how, for so long, writers and HOF electors were ga-ga about BA and batting titles.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I did some more research on Madlock's career.

In early September, 1983, Madlock had a tear in a tendon in his calf. He was not put on the disabled list. He was leading the league in batting at the time.

Madlock played 10 of the next 25 games. He hit .375, but the Pirates lost the division lead to the Wheeze Kids Phillies.

Madlock, by the way, was suspended seven (7) times for unsavory incidents, including incidents with umpires, charging the mound, etc. He picked a fight with a farmhand ptcher of his own organization in 1980 because he thought the kid wasn't throwing hard enough. He got into a clubhouse fight with John Montefusco in 1978 (althouth Montefusco was a prima donna while active, so he may well have invited it).

It may well be unfair to cite 1983 as a time Madlock faked an injury or malingered to preserve a batting title, but several facts remained:

(A) Madlock missed 15 of 25 games down the stretch.
(B) Madlock hit ..375 in the 10 games he did play down the stretch.
(C) Madlock won the batting title.
(D) The Pirates lost the division lead.

Did Madlock malnger? I don't know, and the injury sounds real enough and serious enough that I might cut him a break, but I would like to know why he could play in 10 games but not the other 15?

It's probably unfair that Madlock got the rep about jakng/malingering that he got, but his behavior in other regards set him up for it. The more I read about him, the more I wonder if some people attribute to Dick Allen what he, Madlock, was really like.

[538280]

Sal Bando certainly deserves mention as well. I mentioned it on the other thread, I think he is probably better than Ken Boyer.

[AlecBoy006]

Where would you put Bill Madlock?


Blyleven gets grossly supported (I support him) He also had 3X all Star. 365 OBP. That's not bad. 5 batting titles. That's pretty good, wouldn't you say?

[tearforamariner]

Where would you put Bill Madlock?


Blyleven gets grossly supported (I support him) He also had 3X all Star. 365 OBP. That's not bad. 5 batting titles. That's pretty good, wouldn't you say?


First of all, why bring up Blyleven when you're talking about Madlock? Madlock's a hitter, Blyleven's a pitcher. They shouldn't have anything to with each other.

Second of all, your figures are off. Madlock did not win 5 batting titles. He won 3 titles in 1975, 1976, and 1983. In 1981, he did bat .341, but did so in just 320 PAs, which does not qualify him for a batting title. Still, if you are going to count that, it's only four, not five.

Now, to the question. Madlock is a good candidate, but there are several third basemen that I'd put in first. This includes but is not limited to Santo, Boyer, Cey, Bando, Hack, Darrell Evans, possibly even Graig Nettles. With a list of guys that long that better than Madlock NOT in the Hall, I can't in good conscience support Madlock.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

First of all, why bring up Blyleven when you're talking about Madlock? Madlock's a hitter, Blyleven's a pitcher. They shouldn't have anything to with each other.

Second of all, your figures are off. Madlock did not win 5 batting titles. He won 3 titles in 1975, 1976, and 1983. In 1981, he did bat .341, but did so in just 320 PAs, which does not qualify him for a batting title. Still, if you are going to count that, it's only four, not five.

Now, to the question. Madlock is a good candidate, but there are several third basemen that I'd put in first. This includes but is not limited to Santo, Boyer, Cey, Bando, Hack, Darrell Evans, possibly even Graig Nettles. With a list of guys that long that better than Madlock NOT in the Hall, I can't in good conscience support Madlock.
Madlock did officially win the 1981 batting title.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/historical/leaders.jsp?c_id=mlb&baseballScope=NL&statType=1&sortByStat=All&timeSubFrame2=1&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=1981

A player with less than the minimum number of PAs can still win a batting title. what is done is that the extra PAs are added as outs to his PA total. So, if a player is 5 PAs short then 5 PAs are added to his PA total.

[tearforamariner]

Madlock did officially win the 1981 batting title.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/historical/leaders.jsp?c_id=mlb&baseballScope=NL&statType=1&sortByStat=All&timeSubFrame2=1&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=1981

A player with less than the minimum number of PAs can still win a batting title. what is done is that the extra PAs are added as outs to his PA total. So, if a player is 5 PAs short then 5 PAs are added to his PA total.

Okay, so he still only won four, not five.

[AlecBoy006]

Your right HWR.

Don't get so flashy TFAM. My mistake.

[tearforamariner]

Your right HWR.

Don't get so flashy TFAM. My mistake.

It's okay, it happens to all of us. I just made a mistake myself. I would still vote no on Madlock. Even with 4 batting titles, I don't think his career value matches up to the guys I mention in my first post. Could you make an argument for Madlock over Santo, Boyer, Cey, Bando, Hack, and Darrell Evans? I'd love to hear your opinions on this. It might convince me to give Madlock a better look.

[AlecBoy006]

Santo and Boyer- no.

Bando may be kinda overrated for he played on all those great championship teams.


Hack and Madlock played in two different eras. Madlock hit more homers, had a better batting average, and unlike Hack won a batting title.
Madlock has better black ink. His 442 SLG beats Hack's 397. Hack played on more winning teams, while Madlock had 1 World Series title. Not that that makes any difference, but to show you Madlock put up good numbers while playing for inferior teams. As I know of, Hack's Cubs reached the World Series 4 times to Madlock making it once. Madlock also had more steals. From the glove, Madlock commited fewer errors. Madlock also touched base more.

[tearforamariner]

Santo and Boyer- no.

Bando may be kinda overrated for he played on all those great championship teams.


Hack and Madlock played in two different eras. Madlock hit more homers, had a better batting average, and unlike Hack won a batting title.
Madlock has better black ink. His 442 SLG beats Hack's 397. Hack played on more winning teams, while Madlock had 1 World Series title. Not that that makes any difference, but to show you Madlock put up good numbers while playing for inferior teams. As I know of, Hack's Cubs reached the World Series 4 times to Madlock making it once. Madlock also had more steals. From the glove, Madlock commited fewer errors. Madlock also touched base more.

Madlock did make fewer errors, did so in a whole heck of a lot fewer total chances. Hack's Fielding Percentage (which is the percentage of plays made that aren't errors) is .957. Madlock's is .943. This is like BA for fielding. It's the old standard. If somebody has 3000 hits and a career .285 BA and another guy has 2500 hits and a career BA of .330, who's a better hitter? In addition to this, Madlock also played in an era where he should be making fewer errors. He had much more advanced gloves to put on his hand than Hack did. Hack, for the era he played in, was much better. I haven't even covered Range Factor, which was created to determine how well a player is at getting to balls to field. Madlock was just below league average in this respect, while Hack was superior than the rest of his league. You mentioned BA (which give Madlock the slightest of edges over Hack), and SLG ( which Madlock is far superior), but you forgot to mention OBP. The difference here is amazing. Hack's OBP was .394 while Matlock's is .365.

[AlecBoy006]

Actually, if anyone Madlock creams, it's the Penguin.

See, Cey had more star power and fitting for him to go into the Hall of FAME. But.

Madlock played 15 seasons to Cey's 17. With a better hit total, OBP, SLG, doubles, and triples. Again, more stolen bags for Madlock. Cey had more homers and RBI and runs scored and TB, but played 2 more seasons. Cey had 977 runs scored to Madlock's 920. I am not impressed.

For Cey:

Awards
1981-NL-Babe Ruth Award
1981-ML-WS MVP-Tie
1982-ML-Lou Gehrig Memorial Award

1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

Cey was on leaderboards: leading 0.

Madlock was a 4 time batting champ.

And a better OBP, SLG, and BA in the postseason. Penguin- thumbs down.

[tearforamariner]

Actually, if anyone Madlock creams, it's the Penguin.

See, Cey had more star power and fitting for him to go into the Hall of FAME. But.

Madlock played 15 seasons to Cey's 17. With a better hit total, OBP, SLG, doubles, and triples. Again, more stolen bags for Madlock. Cey had more homers and RBI and runs scored and TB, but played 2 more seasons. Cey had 977 runs scored to Madlock's 920. I am not impressed.

For Cey:

Awards
1981-NL-Babe Ruth Award
1981-ML-WS MVP-Tie
1982-ML-Lou Gehrig Memorial Award

1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

Cey was on leaderboards: leading 0.

Madlock was a 4 time batting champ.

And a better OBP, SLG, and BA in the postseason. Penguin- thumbs down.

I might be willing to concede Cey, but I will say this: He was a superior fielder than Madlock.

[AlecBoy006]

A better fielder? Maybe. Much better?

Cey 961 FP
Madlock 955

Cey 224 Errors
Madlock 222

Madlock had 1694 PO's to Cey's 1555

Madlock had an lgfp and rgfp of 955 and 2.80 to Cey's 949 and 2.79.

The only way I see Cey was much better on defense was he had more assists.

[EvanAparra]

Madlock had an lgfp and rgfp of 955 and 2.80 to Cey's 949 and 2.79.


Madlock was worse than the league in FP and RF and Cey was much better then the rest of the league in both categories. How does that make you think anything but Cey being much better than Madlock.

[KCGHOST]

I wouldn't concede Cey at all. Madlock beats Cey in career OPS+ by six points, but that modest advantage is more than offset by Cey's superior defense. In RCAA they are a virtual push. WARP3 give Cey a strong 96 to 69 edge.

[AlecBoy006]

You would say no for Madlock Evan.

And how is an lgfp and rgfp the numbers are lower that count?

Cey < Madlock

[AlecBoy006]

Madlock had more putouts in fewer games.

[tearforamariner]

A better fielder? Maybe. Much better?

Cey 961 FP
Madlock 955

Cey 224 Errors
Madlock 222

Madlock had 1694 PO's to Cey's 1555

Madlock had an lgfp and rgfp of 955 and 2.80 to Cey's 949 and 2.79.

The only way I see Cey was much better on defense was he had more assists.

Lgfp is League Average Fielding Percentage. This is how well the league average third baseman did. I have the league-average being .957 when Madlock played. His .955 FP means he's actually slightly BELOW average. Cey's league-average being .949 means his .961 was BETTER than average.

Cey's Range Factor was 2.79 when the average was 2.50. Madlock's Range Factor was 2.80 when the average was 2.90. This means that, once again, Cey was above average, Madlock was below average.

[EvanAparra]

What are you talking about?

You listed the league's fielding percentage when you spoke about Cey...Why? To show that the rest of the league was terrible while Cey was so much better than them? That's pretty much what you're doing.

[EvanAparra]

And I didnt say no for anybody -- just saying that Cey was a better fielder than Madlock, which is pretty much proven fact.

[AlecBoy006]

Cey was better I believe because he played more games Just look at the putouts. Cey committed 2 more erros, and has beats Madlock with a 7 point FP. Real impressive.

[EvanAparra]

Cey was better I believe because he played more games Just look at the putouts. Cey committed 2 more erros, and has beats Madlock with a 7 point FP. Real impressive.

Cey was better because of the stats quoted earlier, which has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of games someone plays.

[AlecBoy006]

Their numbers are similar, and Cey played more games. Who's better now?

[EvanAparra]

Their numbers are similar, and Cey played more games. Who's better now?

This is pretty pointless. You just completely ignore every post. I never said Cey was better than Madlock (even if he might have been), just that Cey was a better defender (which he is). To answer the orginal question of the thread, Madlock isn't a HOFer IMO. I'm done here.

[AlecBoy006]

You would say that. You absolutely HATE me and my ideas. I know you do.

[tearforamariner]

You would say that. You absolutely HATE me and my ideas. I know you do.

Calm down AlecBoy. No one hates you or your ideas. The point of Baseball Fever is to have intelligent discussion and debates about baseball. You asked if we thought Bill Madlock should be in the Hall of Fame, you have to accept that people will think that he shouldn't. Heck, Babe Ruth didn't even get 95% of the votes for the Hall of Fame.

[AlecBoy006]

Which is understandable. Because Ruth may have been 1 dimensional.

[tearforamariner]

Which is understandable. Because Ruth may have been 1 dimensional.

1 dimensional? A guy who was an excellent pitcher, had a great arm in right field, and who could hit for power AND average? But this thread isn't about Babe Ruth.

[AlecBoy006]

Only one guy hit 2000 hits and 100 wins. And it wasn't Ruth.

[EvanAparra]

Only one guy hit 2000 hits and 100 wins. And it wasn't Ruth.

No, Ruth only had 2873 hits and 94 wins. And was pretty good in the field for a while witha cannon for an arm. Oops, i said i was leaving -- :: runs out ::

[Captain Cold Nose]

Which is understandable. Because Ruth may have been 1 dimensional.
He may have been.

But evidence proves he wasn't.

[brett]

Madlock did officially win the 1981 batting title.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/historical/leaders.jsp?c_id=mlb&baseballScope=NL&statType=1&sortByStat=All&timeSubFrame2=1&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=1981

A player with less than the minimum number of PAs can still win a batting title. what is done is that the extra PAs are added as outs to his PA total. So, if a player is 5 PAs short then 5 PAs are added to his PA total.

This is strange. Madlock did clearly have 320 plate appearances, but his team had a record of 46 and 56 (102 games) and appeared to have had a non-completed game that counted toward player stats because it was a tie game called for rain and didn't effect the standings.

If his team played 103 games he would have only been required to have 3.1 x 103 plate appearances or 319 to qualify. Some teams had played 110 games so I think that the reference source is just using 352 plate appearances for the batting title, but I believe that according to the rules, he qualified outright. If he had been given extra at bats to fill out 352 he would not have won. I am pretty confident its a computer or reference glitch and he won outright.

[DoubleX]

Madlock is somewhere in that long line of 3Bman with various degrees of decent to good arguments for being inducted; though Madlock is probably at least about 12-15 spots back in that line, IMO.

[538280]

Madlock was as good a hitter as many 3B competitors for the HOF, such as Cey, Bando, etc. But Madlock clearly was not as good a total player as either of them. He played bad defense, and had awful durability, while Bando and Cey were playing 150 games a year Madlock was playing about 120. That also may contribute a lot to Madlock's rate advantage.

Madlock was a nice player, but he's not even close to the HOF. He also had more than a few questionable incidents occur during his career, all around him. This is courtesy of the Baseball Page:

On August 22, 1971, while with Pittsfield of the Eastern League, Madlock was suspended for the entire season for his involvement in a brawl. It all started when Madlock was nearly beaned in the head by pitcher Bob Cluck. An enraged Madlock broke from the restraint of home plate umpire Ken Kaiser and charged the mound, setting off a war. White Sox scout Deacon Jones, who was in the stands, said, "It was the best fight I've seen in my many years in baseball." The Pittsfield police had to come onto the field to restore order, arresting one player. Several witnesses claimed that Madlock had swung a bat and hit a Waterbury player in the arm. Later, the league shortened his suspension, League President Roy Jackson stating: "As I reconstruct the picture, there was no actual swinging of the bat over his head, but there was some swishing of it back and forth. I want to be fair about it. He (Madlock) has served a 14-day suspension and has paid a $75 fine. That's a reasonable penalty. I feel that he has learned his lesson."

August 1975: Madlock was fined by the National League office for his argument with umpire Art Williams on a close play at first base in which Madlock was called out. In a rare display of invective, Madlock managed to be thumbed by both Williams and home plate umpire Bruce Froemming, who overheard the third baseman's angry profanity-laden tirade. Two years later Madlock and Williams butted heads again. On July 3, 1977, Williams called Madlock out on a pitch, prompting the Giants' star fell to his knees, hand his bat to the stunned umpire and proclaim: "You take this and try to hit that pitch." Madlock was run out of the game, his second straight ejection.

On May 1, 1976, Madlock was part of a fight between the Cubs and the Giants in Candlestick Park. It was all precipitated by brushback pitches (of course). When Madlock was hit by Jim Barr, the ultimate fight broke out, featuring a real doozy between the Giants' Gary Matthews and Chicago's George Mitterwald. Madlock was fined $500 for charging the mound and throwing punches.

August 1976: Madlock criticized his teammates on the Cubs' pitching staff for not "protecting him." After being plunked nine times by pitches to lead the NL to that point, Mad Dog challenged Cubs' pitchers to get some payback.
Why would the Cubs trade a two-time defending batting title winner? In January 1977, 82-year old owner Phil Wrigley gave the answer: "When these players are impossible to deal with, I'd rather let somebody else have them." Madlock was unhappy with the team's contract offer (reportedly over $100,000) and according to the Cubs, uncooperative. "My bags are packed. If the Cubs don't think I'm worth it, fine. They can send me on. I'd be stupid to sign for $105,000 or $110,000."

March 1978: Madlock and Giants' ace John Montefusco got into a clubhouse fight after words were exchanged. Madlock interrupted Montefusco as he was being interviewed and soon fists were flying. After the fight, Madlock ripped his teammate: "I've heard and read where Montefusco has said this team is a team of losers."

In the spring of 1979, Madlock got into a feud with Giants ownership. On June 26 he helped instigate an ugly brawl between the Giants and Braves. Madlock was brushed back by a pitch and after popping up on a later delivery, he elbowed Atlanta hurler Bo McLaughlin while running to first. A full-scale baseball fight ensued, with Madlock jabbing punches at McLaughlin and Braves' pitcher Larry McWilliams as well. the incident was later called the "final straw" that sent Madlock to Pittsburgh in a trade two days later.

April, 1980: Madlock hollered at a Pirates' farmhand pitcher (Jess Zaske) to "throw harder!" during batting practice prior to an exhibition game against the Twins. Several Pirates players (including Dave Parker) standing around the cage yelled at Zaske to "Hit him!" Zaske came inside with his next pitch, skimming Madlock's left arm. Madlock walked to the mound and punched Zaske. Asked why he had thrown at the Pirates' star, Zaske said "They told me to." Madlock later apologized for the incident.

On May 1, 1980, Madlock got into his most infamous situation. After home plate umpire Gerry Crawford rung him up on a called strike three, Madlock let him have it. When a teammate handed him his glove, Madlock continued to argue with Crawford face-to-face. During the argument he took his glove and shoved it into the face of the startled umpire. He was immediately ejected and fined. The National League suspended him indefinitely, eventually deciding on 15 days and a $5,000 fine, one of the biggest punishments in history. The furor over his indiscretion was lost on Mad Dog: "If I had wanted to hurt him, I would have." Madlock lost far more than the $5,000 fine. His 15 days of unemployment cost him more than $27,000.

August 1980: Madlock came under attack by the Chicago Cubs after he rolled hard into second base, taking out rookie infielder Steve Macko and putting him on the disabled list. Madlock: "I was just being aggressive."
After the strike, which ripped apart the season, was settled in 1981, Madlock criticized the scheduling of exhibition games during a training period. "We're better off just working out. I can't get up playing an American League club, not even in spring training."

After winning his third batting title, in 1981, Madlock signed a six-year, $5.4 million contract with the Pirates. During the '81 season, the Pirates had accused the Chicago Cubs of tampering with Madlock and infielder Phil garner, both potential free agents.

In May 1982, Madlock stood up for Pirates' scout Howie Haak, who was embroiled in controversy over some remarks he made about blacks in baseball. Haak claimed the Pirates needed more white players to draw fans. Madlock deflected the controversy, "What Howie said was the truth and it wasn't anything that hadn't been said before. I know Howie. He is not a racist."

In early July of 1985 (while MLB players were on strike), Pirates' team captain Bill Madlock slammed the idea of city or county ownership of the team, which was being proposed by some as salvation for the struggling franchise. "The City Council can't make decisions now on little things. To me, it would be ridiculous... They'd have to understand that baseball is a business, but you can't run it like a business. A corporation, they deal in numbers and to them, a ballplayer would just be another employee."

In August 1985, Madlock was ready to leave Pittsburgh. He saw the writing on the wall: "Hey, I'm a Pirate, you know that, and it's left up to the Pirates. If they're going to go with a youth movement here and it looks that way, maybe it would be in their best interests to trade me." To encourage a swap to the Yankees, for whom Madlock wanted to play, the former batting champ turned it on against the Mets, knowing that George Steinbrenner was watchful. In a three-game set in Shea Stadium, Madlock blasted four homers, had six RBI, six runs scored, and seven hits. "Do the Yankees need a third baseman?" Madlock said with a sly grin. "I gave them (Pittsburgh) permission. I'm a 10-and-5 man and I gave them no limitations on where I could be traded." Later that month Madlock was dealt to the Dodgers.

In March of 1986 Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth exonerated Madlock as part of the "Pittsburgh Drug Trials." Madlock's name had been wrongly associated with that scandal, which netted several Pirates' and opposing players for using and selling illegal substances in MLB clubhouses in the early 1980s. Madlock held bitter feelings over the issue, especially toward former teammate Dave Parker, who had told the court that Madlock had given him amphetamines in their Pirates' days. Said Madlock, "It hurt to think that a guy you've known for 10, 12 years, someone you think is your friend, would lie for no apparent reason. I haven't talked to him since — and I don't know if I ever will — so I don't know his reason." Ueberroth and MLB's position was that Madlock had been wrongly accused. "Bill Badlock's reputation on and off the field is above reproach," the commish said. Parker shot back at his former teammate: "...Three or four other individuals had already mentioned his (Madlock's) name. When they asked me on the stand, I wasn't about to perjure myself for a borderline friend..." Willie Stargell had also been accused of supplying players with drugs, but he too was cleared by MLB.

September 1987: Now with Detroit, Madlock injured Blue Jays' infielder Tony Fernandez with a hard slide in a big game in the division race. Madlock quickly came under fire, again. Blue Jays players and fans chimed in. Within a few days of the incident, Madlock was receiving death threats in his Toronto hotel room. "It's nothing. I've been in scrapes before, and this ain't even close." The play was a turning point in the race, and Detroit took the AL East by two games, eliminating the Jays on the final day of the season.

In February 1989, more than a year after his final major league competition, Madlock was still trying to get back into the game. He was discouraged by what he saw, and as usual he was not shy about speaking out. "I'm not stupid enough to believe I can start out at the top, but you don't have to go to college and get a Ph.D. to be a manager. We (blacks) can play for them, but we can't manage them. We can hit home runs and chase the ball, run it down, but when the black player is getting ready to retire, all they say is, 'See you later.'

In August of 1991 Madlock's name was cleared in charges of income tax evasion. It was revealed that his former agent had swindled the IRS and was solely responsible for the shady dealing for which Madlock's name had been dragged into the headlines for a few years.

Madlock suffered some embarrassing episodes after his playing days were through. Twice he was arrested for writing bad checks, once as he was leaving a plane taking him back from an old-timers' event at the All-Star game in 1995. He also failed to appear several times for court hearings and bench warrants were issued for his arrest. Despite the setbacks, Madlock was later hired into MLB.

[mtortolero]

There are incredible facts in Maddlock`s carrer: only had 180 hits or more two times, more than 150 hits only five times, only five times scored more than 70 runs and only three times drove more than 80 runs. Those are very poor acumulative stats for someone with four batting tittles in other two times being runner up in fifteen seasons.
Too, with 73% of his hits being singles the mas was running wild with 264 SB trys but an awfull 64% of effectivity, and if you add the fact of 190 GDP (which means 13 GDP as average per season) then is not hard imagine Maddlock as a bluff, someone who hit for average enough to win the batting tittle, was a handicap running and poor defender. Not even a borderline for me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

And I didnt say no for anybody -- just saying that Cey was a better fielder than Madlock, which is pretty much proven fact.

I have trouble believing that. Cey was considered a poor defensive player while active; a black and blue chest fielder. Now Cey may have undergone a revision a la Ted Simmons, who, in retrospect and under the glare of 21st century sabermetrics, appears to have been an above-average defensive catcher, but that's not how he was viewed while active.

Madlock, on the other hand, was good enough to move to 2B, a more difficult position, while with the Giants. Madlock moved to accomodate Darrell Evans, and however badly he played, the Giants contended in 1978 for the first time in a long time, so how bad could he have been.

Madlock was no better than the fourth best 3B man in the bigs while active. Schmidt, Brett, and Evans were clearly ahead of him. Once Evans moved to first, DeCinces was better, and so was Buddy Bell. Arguably, Toby Harrah was better than Madlock in some of Madlock's better seasons. We haven't even mentioned Cey, who was probably better over the course of his career. That's a lot of contemporaries to be behind and still make the HOF.

There are conflicting accounts as to Madlock's value in the clubhouse. Some say he was selfish, but some of his teams did win, and win big. The 1983 Pirates unexpectedly contended for the division title, despite being an inferior team. Madlock played on a World Champion. And he did have 4 batting titles.

What he didn't have was a long career. His glove couldn't keep him in the game once his bat started to wane a bit, and he grew fat in mid-career and aged poorly. He didn't even have 2,100 hits; that puts him in Dixie Walker territory.

The bottom line on Madlock is the number of 3B ahead of him all time, and the number of CONTEMPORARIES that were ahead of him while active, really whittle his case down to nothing.

[538280]

I have trouble believing that. Cey was considered a poor defensive player while active; a black and blue chest fielder. Now Cey may have undergone a revision a la Ted Simmons, who, in retrospect and under the glare of 21st century sabermetrics, appears to have been an above-average defensive catcher, but that's not how he was viewed while active.

Madlock, on the other hand, was good enough to move to 2B, a more difficult position, while with the Giants. Madlock moved to accomodate Darrell Evans, and however badly he played, the Giants contended in 1978 for the first time in a long time, so how bad could he have been.
[/QUOTE]

I never saw Madlock but from what I've read about him he may have made a better 2Bman than he did a 3Bman. He wasn't a bad athlete, and wasn't really slow, but he sometmes struggled making throws from 3B, and this along with his tendency to boot balls gave him a high error rate. His range wasn't great either because his reaction time wasn't supposed to be good. That's at least what I've heard.

You are right about Cey too, he was not thought of nearly as good in the field as he is today, when metrics have seen him in a much better light. I'd say split the difference and probably view him as about an average 3Bman, but that's still a definite edge over Madlock in the defense department.

I think another big weakness of Madlock was his durability. He wasn't playing much more than 120 games per year. It's hard to contribute at a HOF level when you're missing 40 games a year. Mtortolero made a good point, despite the 4 batting titles he only got over 180 hits twice-because he couldn't stay on the field.

With him the clubhouse, I think that's a great accout I showed above. Highlights a number of incidents from his career.

[Cougar]

Friendly amendment: I'd include Graig Nettles, a near perfect contemporary of Madlock, in the catalog of 3b who were clearly better. I'm guessing you just forgot Nettles when you wrote up your [very good] post.

I have trouble believing that. Cey was considered a poor defensive player while active; a black and blue chest fielder. Now Cey may have undergone a revision a la Ted Simmons, who, in retrospect and under the glare of 21st century sabermetrics, appears to have been an above-average defensive catcher, but that's not how he was viewed while active.

Madlock, on the other hand, was good enough to move to 2B, a more difficult position, while with the Giants. Madlock moved to accomodate Darrell Evans, and however badly he played, the Giants contended in 1978 for the first time in a long time, so how bad could he have been.

Madlock was no better than the fourth best 3B man in the bigs while active. Schmidt, Brett, and Evans were clearly ahead of him. Once Evans moved to first, DeCinces was better, and so was Buddy Bell. Arguably, Toby Harrah was better than Madlock in some of Madlock's better seasons. We haven't even mentioned Cey, who was probably better over the course of his career. That's a lot of contemporaries to be behind and still make the HOF.

There are conflicting accounts as to Madlock's value in the clubhouse. Some say he was selfish, but some of his teams did win, and win big. The 1983 Pirates unexpectedly contended for the division title, despite being an inferior team. Madlock played on a World Champion. And he did have 4 batting titles.

What he didn't have was a long career. His glove couldn't keep him in the game once his bat started to wane a bit, and he grew fat in mid-career and aged poorly. He didn't even have 2,100 hits; that puts him in Dixie Walker territory.

The bottom line on Madlock is the number of 3B ahead of him all time, and the number of CONTEMPORARIES that were ahead of him while active, really whittle his case down to nothing.

[DoubleX]

I could see decent to strong arguments for the following 3Bman being inducted before Madlock (I'm probably forgetting some too):

Bob Elliot
Buddy Bell
Darrell Evans
Gary Gaetti
Graig Nettles
Heinie Groh
Ken Boyer
Matt Williams (when eligible)
Robin Ventura (when eligible)
Ron Cey
Ron Santo
Sal Bando
Stan Hack
Tim Wallach
Toby Harrah
Tommy Leach

[brett]

You are right about Cey too, he was not thought of nearly as good in the field as he is today, when metrics have seen him in a much better light. I'd say split the difference and probably view him as about an average 3Bman, but that's still a definite edge over Madlock in the defense department.
[/QUOTE]

Cey was regarded as a gold glove contender to Mike Schmidts crown both in '84 when the Cubs were hot and in '85 when Schmidt made a move to first for a year. He was mentioned in several publications as the guy who SHOULD have won in those 2 years.

[538280]

Cey was regarded as a gold glove contender to Mike Schmidts crown both in '84 when the Cubs were hot and in '85 when Schmidt made a move to first for a year. He was mentioned in several publications as the guy who SHOULD have won in those 2 years.

Since you saw him I'll believe that, but that's not what I've usually heard. The defensive profile I've always read about Cey was kind of a makeshift 3B who perhaps was more of a 1B but fit there on the Dodgers. He was a hard worker and tried his hardest over there but just didn't have much natural ability. That's what I've always thought was the general perception. Maybe that's not true though.

[tearforamariner]

I could see decent to strong arguments for the following 3Bman being inducted before Madlock (I'm probably forgetting some too):

Bob Elliot
Buddy Bell
Darrell Evans
Gary Gaetti
Graig Nettles
Heinie Groh
Ken Boyer
Matt Williams (when eligible)
Robin Ventura (when eligible)
Ron Cey
Ron Santo
Sal Bando
Stan Hack
Tim Wallach
Toby Harrah
Tommy Leach

Deacon White and Lave Cross also make strong cases.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Madlock would have fared better in HOF voting if he had been a career 2B.

[brett]

Madlock would have fared better in HOF voting if he had been a career 2B.

Interesting. I was just wondering if Sandberg would have been rated higher if he had stayed at 3B.

[brett]

Since you saw him I'll believe that, but that's not what I've usually heard. The defensive profile I've always read about Cey was kind of a makeshift 3B who perhaps was more of a 1B but fit there on the Dodgers. He was a hard worker and tried his hardest over there but just didn't have much natural ability. That's what I've always thought was the general perception. Maybe that's not true though.

I just pulled out a mag from after the '85 season and it reads:

"You want to talk problems, though, you start with third base. That's the area that's been patrolled by Ron Cey of late. But last year, Cey looked like a guy who was a lot more ready to patrol a retirement community than a baseball field. His stellar achievements include leading the league in errors with 21 (no mean feat, considering he covers less territory than your sofa)...."

So I guess you are right. My memory is pretty good about these things, and I do think that in '84 he was considered a valid candidate.

[Colorado Express]

He has no chance.

[Dalkowski110]

No chance whatsoever. There are a dozen third basemen ahead of him. We're already waiting on Ron Santo, Ken Boyer, and Stan Hack (plus Darrell Evans, IMO). Why add another, this time clearly undeserving, guy into the mix?