Informal Hall of Fame Opinion Poll

[mr2686]

Hey guys...I for one am not arguing Rice over Madlock...I think they both deserve to be in.

[Kenny Cole]

I'd choose Al Oliver over Madlock. He always hit the ball hard, had over 2700 hits, and was absolutely a hitting machine. I liked Maddog, but Oliver was head and shoulders better. When talking about guys who got the shaft from the BBWAA, I'd put the two O's, Oliver and Oliva, up near the top.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I'd choose Al Oliver over Madlock. He always hit the ball hard, had over 2700 hits, and was absolutely a hitting machine. I liked Maddog, but Oliver was head and shoulders better. When talking about guys who got the shaft from the BBWAA, I'd put the two O's, Oliver and Oliva, up near the top.

I second that... Oliver was a machine. Perhaps if he had more longevity, he might have made it in. I still remember a long stretch of televised Pirates games in the '70s... he must have gone about 16 for 20, and even his outs were among the hardest hit balls in the game.

[Mark]

Oliver always seemed to center the ball, but he was not a great rbi man. With all the hitters in front of him, he should have driven in tons of runs in the early to mid seventes. But he drove in 100 runs only once, at the end of his career. I still think Madlock was the better hitter.

[Kenny Cole]

Actually, he drove in 100+ twice and 99 once. Madlock? 0. Oliver also had 700+ more hits. Oliver had 7 AS appearances, Madlock had 3. We can debate the numbers and what they mean, but I believe that people at the time thought Oliver to be the better ballplayer. Now, years after they have both retired, I believe that the thinking back then was, and remains, accurate.

[Joe_G.]

I also hate to kick anyone out but want to voice support for the single most deserving 19th century player not yet enshrined . . . Deacon White.

Without question, Deacon was the games best catcher during a decade in which the catcher was of most importance, the 1870s. If a team didn't have a good catcher, they didn't stand a chance regardless of who might be pitching. Catching wasn't for the faint of heart back then and Deacon did it masterfully, moving close behind the batter to hold runners from advancing while pitchers threw harder and began experimenting with curve balls etc. His defense alone makes him more than worthy but it didn't end there. Deacon also posted impressive offensive numbers in the 1870s including a couple years in which he would lead many catagories. He would re-invent himself as a better than average 3rd baseman in the 1880s and continue to post better than average offensive numbers even when he became the oldest man in the League in 1887. Championships seemed to follow him just about everywhere he went. I don't understand Deacon's exclusion.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Hey guys...I for one am not arguing Rice over Madlock...I think they both deserve to be in.

I have had many discussions over who should/shouldn't be in the HOF, but I can honestly say this is the first time I have heard Madlock's name being brought up.

The 4 batting titles absolutely should not give him a pass into the hall.

1975 - 354 7HR 64RBI 77Runs
1976 - 339 15HR 84RBI 68Runs
1981 - 341 6HR 45RBI 35Runs (strike shortened season)
1983 - 323 12HR 68RBI 68Runs

Madlock had a nice BA those seasons, but those are not HOF type seasons.

In a single season he never had 100RBI, never had 100Runs, did not have 1,000 RBI or Runs for his career. Never finished top 5 in any MVP voting.

Only 3 All Star selections in 15 full big league seasons.

And the most glaring stat to me...his season high in hits was 182!! And he only got over 170 hits in a season 3 times...

I just don't see how his name can even be brought up.

[mr2686]

Rob,

It's clear that we disagree on Madlock, but let me say that sometimes it not just about the numbers. I watched Madlock play a lot and it's just my opinion that he should eek in...not a solid hof'er but borderline falling on to the Hall side of the fence. I could go on about where he batted in the order that hurt his rbi's, who else played third that made the all star team ahead of him, the fact that he almost had 5 batting titles although 4 was the most by a right handed hitter for some time yada yada yada. To show my point about the numbers, I'll pick someone you want to put in...someone I think deserves to be in as well...Bert Blyleven. Blyleven never led the league in wins or ERA. He only won 20 once and only led the league in strikeouts once. When he retired he was way up on the strikeout totals but had a 287-250 wins to loses ratio. Those numbers don't tell what kind of pitcher he was in big games or what kind of teams he played on. I watched him as well and think he should be in too.
Maybe I'm getting too sentimental about some of the players I got to see...the Al Olivers, the Dick Allen's, the Alan Trammels and the Steve Garvey's of the world, but at least it makes for some interesting discussions.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Robextend

The 4 batting titles absolutely should not give him a pass into the hall.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[JohnH19]

Bill Madlock would lower the bar for baseball HOFers more than the election of Floyd Little lowered it in football.

Madlock was a good player. He wasn't a great player. He wasn't one of the very best players of his era. Good players do not belong in Cooperstown.