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]

Originally Posted by Chancellor

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]

Originally Posted by leecemark

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

How do you know?

[rugbyfreak]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

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]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

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]

Originally Posted by cavalier1968

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.