Well, since you compliment all the discussion in another thread, primarily devoted to this very topic ... but then create an entirely NEW thread devoted to this same topic - but by creating a new thread you eliminate all the so-called good discussion points with which you disagree, I thought I would copy and paste MY response to the initial thread on this subject.
For the record, my issue with Madlock is much less to do with a lack of power than a lack of ANY outstanding Hall of Fame qualifying characteristics OTHER than BA. In other words ALL he had was a high career BA and 4 BA titles. Nothing else. Only 2 All Star appearances, no Silver Slugger Awards (i.e. the best hitter at his position in his league in any 1 season), no MVP awards, barely 2000 hits, very few full seasons, etc. Frankly, you are simply wrong about Madlock, or even the discussion about his qualifications ... the issue was not MERELY lack of power, but lack of anything other than a high career BA.
Now specifically to your latest justifications: You cite 7 criteria which YOU believe qualify a player for the Hall of Fame. I think not a SINGLE one of those characteristics actually matter, or should matter. You put forward these characteristics specifically as a SUBSTITUTE for "STATISTICS AND OTHER DATA." You also dismiss All Star appearances and MVP awards, which in your words are merely "opinions of third parties."
Really? So you suggest swapping your completely arbitrary criteria (which might or might not be stats, and are YOUR opinions), INSTEAD of commonly viewed relevant stats and data (which baseball has been using for 125 years to measure players), and CONTEMPORANEOUS opinions of 3rd parties (like fellow players, managers and sports writers who actually covered baseball during the seasons in which these players played). Why is YOUR 3rd party opinion qualify as any substitute for either actual stats, and contemporaneous 3rd party opinions?
Separate from that, as I stated, your criteria are not criteria I would think are the most relevant for Hall of fame consideration. You cite:
1) Did a player - specifically a power hitter - strike out a lot, and then say you think that striking out a lot is the WORST thing a hitter can do (which is questionable , at best).
2) Is the hitter clutch (how do you measure that - and where does Madlock fit on that - with proof, please).
3) Fierce competitor .. how do you measure that? And lots of players are fiercely competitive. Heck, the SF Giants had a guy who was one of the fiercest competitors they ever had, a guy named Ron Hunt ... nowhere near a HOF player.
4) Leader (was Madlock a leader? If so, was he THE leader of his teams? I seem to recall there were several other players consider primary leaders on his teams other than Madlock).
5) Good base runner ... sigh ... fine ... maybe worthwhile, but how does one measure that other than SB? And how much rate should it REALLY count? Minor in my opinion.
6) Did a hitter hit good pitchers BETTER than not as good pitchers? Why is this relevant? If a player hit poorly against the very best pitchers, but killed bad pitchers (of which there are more than good pitchers), why should that count less than hitting better against good pitchers than against bad pitchers? And anyway, where is your evidence in how this helps his team win games?
These are terrible criteria to use as primary, or even secondary criteria ... you are just inventing things here to try to justify your position.
One more thing: Your last comment about 4 BA titles for Madlock and the list of the only other players who have 4 or more BA titles is one of the worst justifications for a player being in the HOF. See below, about the book by Bill James called "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame." He has an entire chapter on HOF justifications like this and the flaws of those arguments.
Specifically, let us look at your list of 10 other players who won 4 or more BA titles, all of whom, except Madlock, are in the HOF:
1) Madlock bears ZERO resemblance to ANY of those 10 players, EXCEPT he had 4 BA titles. NO RESEMBLANCE.
2) Here are some differences between Madlock and those 10 players:
a) Madlock is the only one of these with fewer than 2600 hits (Madlock has 2008 hits). And Ted Williams has just 2654 hits, missing 5 full seasons in his prime due to war time military service in 2 different wars. 7 of the 10 players have 3000+ hits, while Hornsby has over 2900 hits.
b) Madlock is the only one of these hitters with a lifetime BA below .317 - Madlock's BA is .305 ... and 9 of the 10 hitters listed have a lifetime BA of AT LEAST .328. Clemente has "only" a .317 lifetime BA ... but has 3000 hits, 1300+ RBI, 1400+ runs, 12 All Stars, an MVP, 4 top 5 placements in the MVP voting and 11 old Gloves (was considered the truly elite fielding RF of his entire era).
c) Madlock is the only 1 of these 11 players with an OPS+ of less than 130 ... his is 123 - well less than 130 (OPS - which is OBA + SA - relative to the other layers in the league, adjusted for park factors).
d) Madlock is the only player who played when there was an All Star game (Heilman, Wagner, Hornsby and Cobb did not have the "benefit" of having an All Star game played during their career), of the 6 other players, who had FEWER than 12 (TWELVE) All star appearances. So YOU may not put any value to "3rd party opinions" like All Star appearances, but Madlock had TWO AS's, while every other player on your BA title list had at least 12 AS appearances.
e) Of the 10 other players you cite, 8 had at least 5 BA titles and 7 had at least 6 BA titles ... so other than Heilman (who had 4 BA titles playing as a direct overlap at various times with Wagner - 6 BA titles, Cobb - 12 BA titles and Hornsby - 7 BA titles), and Clemente, who did have 4 BA titles, but was actually better known for his extra-ordinary fielding, and amazing all around baseball playing - and STILL had a much better hitting career than Madlock, Madlock actually had FEWER BA titles than the other 8 players on your list. If you had picked the hurdle of 5 BA titles, Madlock would not have made the list - you simply arbitrarily picked the level at which you could find other players who all made the HOF.
f) ALL the other players, all 10, are considered MAJOR STARS (well, maybe not Heilman - but Heilman had 600 more hits than did Madlock and 500 more RBI and 400 more Runs). Madlock is considered a fine BA hitter, but not a star - never was Madlock really considered a star within the league or the major leagues, while playing - just a fine hitter. By merely mentioning Madlock in the same sentence, comparing him to plauers like Ted WIlliams, Stan Musial, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Rogers Hornsby, or even Gwynn, Carew or Boggs, you lose ALL credibility.
Now, I will say that Al Oliver has much better credentials for the HOF than does Madlock - but he fails on many other levels - which I think I address below.
My prior post:
This post is one of the problems with fans debating the Hall of Fame. For a real perspective on how players have gotten into the Hall, or not - and some of the potentially appropriate statistical criteria ... and just a darned good read, read Bill James' book "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame." This is the best book EVER on the baseball Hall of Fame.
But one of the problems with those debating Hall of Fame criteria (and not just fans), is the If So and So, then So and So OTHER player - which you just did. OR ... Player X got in and he did not have power, so why should not Player Y also get in with out power? AND ... sometimes, quite simply, the Hall of Fame voters - especially the Veterans Committee (or its equivalent - like the one just voted) - makes mistakes. If a player's induction is a mistake, there is no mechanism for removal, but that does not mean equally invalid or undeserving players belong in. That would just compound the error.
Let us deal with the 2nd argument 1st: Player X did not have power, but is in the Hall of Fame .. Why not ALSO put in Player Y who does not have power. The answer is USUALLY that Player X got into the Hall of Fame DESPITE not having power - there were other criteria that had more meaning in the eyes of the voters, OTHER than power.
Specifically, you bought up 4 named players without power, comparing them to Madlock (and I want to start by saying I loved watching Madlock hit). Of those players, Mazerowski, Rizzuto and Reese are never going to be viewed through the same lens, as they were MI's, while Madlock was primarily a 3B. Boggs WAS also a 3B, so maybe more comparable.
So ...
Player X: 3B, 18 years, 2432 games, .328 BA, 9180 AB, 3010 hits, 118 HR, 1014 RBI, 1513 runs, 24 SB, 1412 BB, ,415 OBA, .443 SA, .858 OPS, 5 BA titles, 6 OBA titles, 2 OPS titles, 12X AS, 8X SS, 0 GG. 3 most statistically comparable players: Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn, Paul Waner.
Player Y: 3B, 15 years, 1806 games, .305 BA, 6594 AB, 2008 hits, 163 HR, 860 RBI, 920 Runs, 174 SB, 605 BB, .365 OBA, .442 SA, .807 OPS, 4 BA titles, 0 OBA titles, 0 OPS titles, 2X AS, 0 SS, 0 GG. 3 most statistically comparable players: Carney Lansford, Pinkie Higgins and George Kell.
Do you see ANY comparison between players X and Y? I do not - they are not in the same league, even though Player Y has more HR and more SB - though the same career Slugging average. They are not in the same UNIVERSE of performance, either peak or overall career. Player X was Wade Boggs, Player Y was Bill Madlock.
One of my standards for the Hall of Fame (from Bill James, I will admit) involves combining SEVERAL of these (i.e. being the best player in the league once, is not criteria for being in the Hall of Fame): Was the player EVER considered the best player in the league in any season? Was the player ever considered one of the best players in the league in any one year? Was the player considered the best, or one of the best, players in the league - or even at their position, for a series of years? Bill Madlock was considered ONE of the best hitters in the league during several years - but he never won a Silver Slugger award in ANY season (best hitter at his position that year). He was never considered the best 3B in the league. He never ranked higher than 6th in the MVP race - and was only top 10 2 times in 15 years. He rarely played in more than 135 games in a season (just 5 times in 15 seasons) - so he was often hurt. And if you do not have though types of superlatives in individual seasons, then you need to be a compiler (like Boggs, perhaps). But if you are just a compiler, you need to hit certain hurdles. For a low-power compiler, you need 3000 hits, unless you are a middle infielder - especially a superb fielding middle infielder. Madlock was none of those.
Also, one of Bill James' criteria for players being considered for the Hall of Fame - especially by Veterans Committees: Is the player being considered the BEST player NOT in the Hall of Fame - or one of the best. Madlock does not even come close. I will cite 3 players below who are clearly, distinctly, and maybe signifcantly more qualified for the Hall of Fame.
Examples of "compilers" who fell short:
1) Tony Oliva. Oliva had some very similar stats as did Madlock, in some ways - except he was DISTINCTLY superior (though an OF, not a 3B): .304 BA in 15 years and 6300 AB, for example. But he had more power (220 HR), similar RBI (947), more runs (840), fewer SB (86), BUT ... 8 consecutive AS appearances, won the Rookie of the Year, 3 top 5 MVP finishes - including runner-up twice, 3 BA titles.
2) Mark Grace (not a Hall of Famer, in my opinion - and never will be): .303 BA in 16 years, over 8000+ AB - 2445 hits. He had 173 HR, 1146 RBI, 1179 Runs, 70 SB, 1075 BB, 3 All stars and 4 GG.
3) Al Oliver (also not a Hall of Famer, in my opinion): .303 BA in 18 years, 2368 games, 9000+ AB, 2743 hits, 219 HR, 1326 RBI, 1189 Runs, 84 SB, 7 All Stars, 3 Silver Slugger awards.
Now, as to Trammell ... I was not convinced he was a Hall of Famer. He was probably better than Madlock, over an entire career, though, factoring in his POSITION (SS). He did have a lower BA, true (.285), and a lower Slugging Average - and fewer HR - onoy 170 or so HR. But he also had 236 SB, 4 Gold Gloves at a key fielding position (Madlock had none), 6 times an All Star (0 for Madlock) and 3 Silver Slugger awards (considered the best SS hitter in the league).
As to Rizzuto and Reese: Both played SS. I actually believe Rizzuto was a mistake (read Bill James' book) - but he WAS considered by his contemporaries as a better, and more important player in his time, than Madlock was by his contemporaries (won an MVP, finished 2nd another time, a 4X All Star).
Last note on Madlock: There is NO WAY A PLAYER EVER DESERVES THE HALL OF FAME if he NEVER was an All Star player ... and Madlock never made the All Star team.
