Gil Hodges HOFer anyone?

[dgarza]

The BBWAA seemed to favor Gil Hodges to the tune of voting a near consistent 60+% on the HOF ballots in the past.

The VC also likes Gil Hodges at about 60%.

How do you vote?

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by dgarza
The BBWAA seemed to favor Gil Hodges to the tune of voting a near consistent 60+% on the HOF ballots in the past.

The VC also likes Gil Hodges at about 60%.

How do you vote?


Check the Brooklyn forum, this subject has been done to death. Oh i vote no.

[Brad Harris]

Hodges first appeared on the BBWAA ballot in 1969. That summer, he piloted the "Miracle Mets" to a World Championship. His percentage of support doubled immediately, rising from 24% to 48% that winter.

He kicked around there for a few seasons (garnering 50% in 1971 and dropping back to 40% in 1972), but then he died in April of 1972 at the age of 47 and his vote totals lept by some 57 votes at the end of that year (in the 1973 election), giving him 57% support! No doubt, those 57 voters were more sympathetic to the man's early death than they were convinced he was a great ballplayer.

He continued to hover between 49%-61% for the rest of his tenure on the ballot until his final year - which was no doubt pointed out to several voters, when his total shot up again by some 32 votes, leaping from 49% in 1982 to 63% in 1983.

Hodges seems to have been the recipient of a fair number of votes for reasons passing his status as a good/great player.

(1) Hodges received a tremendous boost in attention for winning the World Series with the Mets.

(2) Hodges received a very good boost in votes upon dying young.

(3) Hodges received another big boost as writers pushed to get him elected before he dropped off the ballot.

Hodges was a good player who played on great teams and managed a famous team. Almost his entire baseball career was spent in greater New York City and he was a popular player and manager on the teams for which he worked.

Hodges died young and was beloved. That, to me, explains the fact that he's the only man to receive more than 50% support in a single election yet never be eventually inducted into the Hall of Fame.

I've argued against his election before and I always seem to gain a little more respect for him each time I dig deeper into the man's career and character, but in my opinion, he falls a little short.

If the Veterans Committee wants to select someone with a good player and manager resume, why doesn't Joe Torre get more love?

[dgarza]

Originally posted by Chancellor


Hodges seems to have been the recipient of a fair number of votes for reasons passing his status as a good/great player.

(1) Hodges received a tremendous boost in attention for winning the World Series with the Mets.

(2) Hodges received a very good boost in votes upon dying young.

(3) Hodges received another big boost as writers pushed to get him elected before he dropped off the ballot.



But he is still highly considered...
20 years after his final vote on BBWAA...
30 years after his passing...
35 years after the Mets...
It seems voters would have given up or given in by now.

[Eddie Collins]

No.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally posted by dgarza
But he is still highly considered...
20 years after his final vote on BBWAA...
30 years after his passing...
35 years after the Mets...
It seems voters would have given up or given in by now.

That's the thing. One never knew how well a player did in previous VC elections. While Hodges did very well for a non-HOF'er in his years on the writer's ballot, can anyone say for certain how his peers and the others on the committee voted in regards to him before the current administration?

I don't remember how things turned out in 2003, but I think there wer a few players who did do better in the voting than Hodges.

[MetsFan11368]

An interesting take on this subject.....

" Tommy Holmes said that with Hodges' hands and his ability as well as his power, he would today be definitely headed for the Hall of Fame had he been able to play at short, his original position.....like Tommy Holmes, I believe Hodges could have been a great short stop".

James T. Farrell
My Baseball Diary

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Chancellor

If the Veterans Committee wants to select someone with a good player and manager resume, why doesn't Joe Torre get more love?

Because Torre hasn't quit yet. Once he retires, he's a mortal lock.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by JACKIE42
Check the Brooklyn forum, this subject has been done to death.

It has been done to death. I vote yes.

[nightal]

No.

[The Commissioner]

I've already typed to death on this one before. Anyone that could stay awake through my ramblings will recall that I was, and still am, a "yes" vote on this one.

[Archie Bunker]

when do the veterans committe.does any know?

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Archie Bunker
when do the veterans committe.does any know?

December 1, 2004 is when the next Players Ballot will be mailed to the Veterans Committee members. Gil Hodges would need 15 more votes than he received in 2003 to get elected.

[Brad Harris]

I think you can replace Hodges/Brooklyn/1950s with Perez/Cincinnati/1970s and the same holds true. You could have put Lee May, John Mayberry, Boog Powell or George Scott into that lineup and not lost any production. No one is clamoring for their induction either. And Perez was a big mistake. No need to compound it by inducting Hodges. At least, that's the way I see it.

[shlevine42]

As a Brooklyn fan who saw Hodges throughout his career, I say I'm up to here with the persistent, maudlin appeals to get Hodges into the Hall of Fame because: (take your pick)
1. He died too young
2. Other Dodgers are in, why not Gil?
3. Perez is in, why not Gil?
4. Gil's widow has been campaigning for him since he died, and now she's getting older and we have to get him in before SHE dies.

Hodges did not have a HOF career. He was on the BBWA ballot for 15 years. He wasn't voted in. Case closed.

Can we now put this issue to rest? PLEASE?

[tonypug]

Take Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda out of the hall and I agree Gil doesn't quite make it. The other two are in Gil belongs as well. It might be beaten to death, but it is still a controversial topic.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by tonypug
Take Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda out of the hall and I agree Gil doesn't quite make it. The other two are in Gil belongs as well. It might be beaten to death, but it is still a controversial topic.

Three wrongs do not make a right! :crazy

[Cougar]

I think all three of those guys belong in the Hall, but I also agree that the "if...then" argument is fallacious. With the Frisch teammates in, plus a handful of other clear mistakes, it could snowball fast.

[ci11829]

I don't think Hodges should be in the HOF, he had a few good years for his era.

[tonypug]

Hodges had 100 or more RBI's 7 straight years,70 or more 10 straight years, 20 or more Home Runs 11 straight years, made 10 All Star teams and won 3 Gold Gloves. Thats not just a few good years fr his era.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by tonypug
Hodges had 100 or more RBI's 7 straight years,70 or more 10 straight years, 20 or more Home Runs 11 straight years, made 10 All Star teams and won 3 Gold Gloves. Thats not just a few good years fr his era.

Also keep in mind that the Gold Glove wasn't even awarded until Hodges was in the twilight of his career. Had he won, perhaps as many as ten Gold Gloves would that have made a stronger impression on his H.O.F. resume?

[Brad Harris]

Not really. I mean...it didn't help Keith Hernandez much, did it?

[tonypug]

Don't try to compare Hernandez to Hodges. Election to the Hall is supposed to take into consideration, a ballplayers character and the way he conducts himself, on and off the field. That alone stops Hernandez from being considered. Hodges also had a much bigger role in his teams success.

[Zeth]

It didn't keep Ty Cobb or Rogers Hornsby out, either. (It probably did keep Dick Allen out, though.)

I'm not going to rehash arguments that have already been made, but it seems pretty clear to me Gil doesn't quite measure up to the standard.

[Cougar]

It seems to me that you can determine whether a person is a HOF hardliner or not simply by asking his position on Gil Hodges. I don't think there's more difference of opinion on any one guy, and it's pretty fundamental to how you see the Hall.

And the funny thing is, it's always genial. Other hard cases usually degenerate to name calling or insults, but the Hodges threads always stay nice.

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by Cougar
It seems to me that you can determine whether a person is a HOF hardliner or not simply by asking his position on Gil Hodges. I don't think there's more difference of opinion on any one guy, and it's pretty fundamental to how you see the Hall.

And the funny thing is, it's always genial. Other hard cases usually degenerate to name calling or insults, but the Hodges threads always stay nice.

One of the reasons it was always genial, was Gil the man, even we Brooklyn fans who don't think he belongs in the HOF and im one of them loved the guy. And i guess out of respect for him we were always civil.

[0077]

Gil Hodges is One of the Borderline HOFers who could be selected to the HOF without anyone making a big fuss about it unlike...Mazeroski, etc?

Hodges is better the some of the Players in the HOF.

He is the Best candidate in the VC group and hopefully he will get selected in Jan 2005, just in time for the 50th celebration of the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers World Series victory over the Yankees.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Zeth
It didn't keep Ty Cobb or Rogers Hornsby out, either. (It probably did keep Dick Allen out, though.)


But Cobb and Hornsby weren't controversial or highly debated candidates as are the cases with Hodges, Allen, and Hernandez.

[tonypug]

Cobb and Hornsby were certainly not model citizens, but to my knowledge they were not drug users or accused of the things these other players were.

[Zeth]

Sure. My point, which I could have stated better before I guess, was that character issues very rarely affect a man's Hall of Fame chances. As I posted on another thread recently, I think Dick Allen is probably the only man who isn't in the Hall of Fame but would be if his personality had been nicer. I don't think Keith Hernandez would be in the Hall even if he had been Mother Theresa off the field.

[The Commissioner]

BTW, other than drug abuse did Hernandez even have that bad of an off the field reputation? The only negatives I'm familiar with are the spring training fight and the drug use. Was he ever combative with the press?

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
BTW, other than drug abuse did Hernandez even have that bad of an off the field reputation? The only negatives I'm familiar with are the spring training fight and the drug use. Was he ever combative with the press?

Drug use, thats one negative to many for me. No gamblers on baseball or druggies in the HOF.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by JACKIE42
Drug use, thats one negative to many for me. No gamblers on baseball or druggies in the HOF.

I have a feeling we may be a little too late on the second one of those.

[0077]

Gil Hodges would be in the HOF long before Now, if he did NOT go 0 for 21 in the 1952 World Series.

If he had gotten, Six Hits in that WS, the Dodgers probably would have beaten the Yankees, and Hodges would be in the HOF.

Now his HOF supporters will have to await the 50th anniversary of the 1955 WS and his induction.

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
I have a feeling we may be a little too late on the second one of those.

Its not to late for the future. Do you know of any druggies in the HOF?

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by 0077
Gil Hodges would be in the HOF long before Now, if he did NOT go 0 for 21 in the 1952 World Series.

If he had gotten, Six Hits in that WS, the Dodgers probably would have beaten the Yankees, and Hodges would be in the HOF.

Now his HOF supporters will have to await the 50th anniversary of the 1955 WS and his induction.

Do you really believe that one bad WS, kepted any real HOFer from getting in. And thats a real leap to think that six hits by Gil would have won the WS for Brooklyn in 52.

[shlevine42]

Originally posted by 0077
Gil Hodges would be in the HOF long before Now, if he did NOT go 0 for 21 in the 1952 World Series.

If he had gotten, Six Hits in that WS, the Dodgers probably would have beaten the Yankees, and Hodges would be in the HOF.

Now his HOF supporters will have to await the 50th anniversary of the 1955 WS and his induction.

The kindest thing that can be said about this statement is "hooey."

Let me repeat what I've said earlier:

Hodges was on the BBWA ballot for 15 years, and wasn't voted in, because the people who saw him play didn't think he was worthy. It is nothing less than delusionary to believe that his futility in the '52 Series is what has kept him out of the Hall.

Gil Hodges did NOT have a HOF career. Period.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by JACKIE42
Its not to late for the future. Do you know of any druggies in the HOF?

It depends. Are we also counting alcohol as a drug?

[dgarza]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
It depends. Are we also counting alcohol as a drug? there are other things to consider, but they are mostly semantics and "possibilities"

i'm sure there were some things used when they were not illegal, which are now illegal. opium was not illegal until 1905 i think. who knows who used opium before then?
what about Joe D? he was certainly amoung the crowd. who knows?
and then there's "speed"

& how many of these guys didn't go to college and not smoke some reefer?

[NOMAR22]

Hodges had 100 or more RBI's 7 straight years,70 or more 10 straight years, 20 or more Home Runs 11 straight years, made 10 All Star teams and won 3 Gold Gloves. Thats not just a few good years fr his era.


I would vote for Gil Hodges making the HOF,he deserves to be in it. His 370 HRS are worth more than Jeff Bagwell's 449 HRS in the steroids ERA.

[RuthMayBond]

I would vote for Gil Hodges making the HOF,he deserves to be in it. His 370 HRS are worth more than Jeff Bagwell's 449 HRS in the steroids ERA.
1) Is it possible it's not all about HR?
2) Is his THIRTY points lower OPS+ over FEWER plate apps worth more?

[digglahhh]

Nomar,

You're aware that there are much more recent threads about this topic, right?

Why dig up one from two years ago, containing several posts from members who aren't even active here anymore?

There were two Gil Hodges HOF threads within the last two months.

I don't have a problem with you digging up old threads, but why do it unnessecarily?

[NOMAR22]

Nomar,

You're aware that there are much more recent threads about this topic, right?

Why dig up one from two years ago, containing several posts from members who aren't even active here anymore?

There were two Gil Hodges HOF threads within the last two months.

I don't have a problem with you digging up old threads, but why do it unnessecarily?

I haven't got to those new threads yet. Im still on #37.

[NOMAR22]

1) Is it possible it's not all about HR?
2) Is his THIRTY points lower OPS+ over FEWER plate apps worth more?


You are correct. But Gil Hodges playing for the Dodgers who were winners is also a big deal .

[RuthMayBond]

You are correct. But Gil Hodges playing for the Dodgers who were winners is also a big deal .Right, because a team wins only because of one person, and there is no NY bias

[digglahhh]

I haven't got to those new threads yet. Im still on #37.

So why not go backwards instead of forwards?

[kramer_47]

You are correct. But Gil Hodges playing for the Dodgers who were winners is also a big deal .

Thank you Nomar for bringing this thread back, it is a good topic and I have to vote YES. I noticed the same baloney 2 years ago about replacing Hodges with Klu or Adcock or Dee Fondy how about Wayne Belardi, Preston Ward maybe since First base means so little we could put the batboy "Charlie the brow" there. So many good first baseman in the Dodgers farm system never made it with them for one reason and one reason only because Gil was the Dodgers first baseman not any of the others. Gil could have played any of the infield positions, he was signed as a shortstop went to third then catcher and finally first base, he was a team player and good athlete. I also noticed 2 years ago that no one mentioned about Gil missing 2 1/2 years to WW2, those missing years would have changed some peoples minds about him being borderline if he had 400 home runs, more rbi, more runs and hits.

[NOMAR22]

Thank you Nomar for bringing this thread back, it is a good topic and I have to vote YES. I noticed the same baloney 2 years ago about replacing Hodges with Klu or Adcock or Dee Fondy how about Wayne Belardi, Preston Ward maybe since First base means so little we could put the batboy "Charlie the brow" there. So many good first baseman in the Dodgers farm system never made it with them for one reason and one reason only because Gil was the Dodgers first baseman not any of the others. Gil could have played any of the infield positions, he was signed as a shortstop went to third then catcher and finally first base, he was a team player and good athlete. I also noticed 2 years ago that no one mentioned about Gil missing 2 1/2 years to WW2, those missing years would have changed some peoples minds about him being borderline if he had 400 home runs, more rbi, more runs and hits.

IT'S CRAZY for people to say that Gil Hodges is not a HOF. He should of made it 20 years ago.

[RuthMayBond]

Thank you Nomar for bringing this thread back, it is a good topic and I have to vote YES. I noticed the same baloney 2 years ago about replacing Hodges with Klu or Adcock or Dee Fondy how about Wayne Belardi, Preston Ward maybe since First base means so little we could put the batboy "Charlie the brow" there. So many good first baseman in the Dodgers farm system never made it with them

Such as?

<Gil could have played any of the infield positions, he was signed as a shortstop went to third then catcher and finally first base, he was a team player and good athlete.>

Hm, wonder why they moved Jackie off first base right away?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Right, because a team wins only because of one person, and there is no NY bias
I'm still waiting for your Charlie Silvera reference.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm still waiting for your Charlie Silvera reference.Charlie Silvera is a refutation of those who count rings instead of a player's actual performance. Charlie Silvera "won" a lot of rings but it was hardly because of his own performance. Tell me which team you'd rather have
P-GaPerry, FJenkins, TLyons
C-RFerrell
1B-JBeckley
2B-Lajoie
3B-Santo
SS-Banks (or Appling)
OF-EDelahanty
OF-Billy Williams
OF-EFlick

P-TByrne, Rosy Ryan, Jim Coates
C-Charlie Silvera
1B-Joe Collins
2B-JGilliam
3B-ACarey
SS-Jack Barry
OF-Amos Strunk
OF-Johnny Lindell
OF-Irv Noren

Hint: NO ONE from the first team EVER even GOT in the postseason, but the second team combined for FORTY-NINE WORLD championships :rolleyes:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Charlie Silvera is a refutation of those who count rings instead of a player's actual performance. Charlie Silvera "won" a lot of rings but it was hardly because of his own performance. Tell me which team you'd rather have
P-GaPerry, FJenkins, TLyons
C-RFerrell
1B-JBeckley
2B-Lajoie
3B-Santo
SS-Banks (or Appling)
OF-EDelahanty
OF-Billy Williams
OF-EFlick

P-TByrne, Rosy Ryan, Jim Coates
C-Charlie Silvera
1B-Joe Collins
2B-JGilliam
3B-ACarey
SS-Jack Barry
OF-Amos Strunk
OF-Johnny Lindell
OF-Irv Noren

Hint: NO ONE from the first team EVER even GOT in the postseason, but the second team combined for FORTY-NINE WORLD championships :rolleyes:
Oh, I know why you do that. I was just waiting for you to throw it out there. There's not much of a comeback to it, is there?

[kramer_47]

IT'S CRAZY for people to say that Gil Hodges is not a HOF. He should of made it 20 years ago.

You are absolutely right Nomar, and even after that in 1992 Teddy ballgame wouldn't allow a sick Roy Campanella to phone in his vote for Gil and Gil missed by one vote.

[kramer_47]

Such as?

<Gil could have played any of the infield positions, he was signed as a shortstop went to third then catcher and finally first base, he was a team player and good athlete.>

Hm, wonder why they moved Jackie off first base right away?

In 1947 the Dodgers needed a first baseman so Jackie got the nod Stanky was at second in 1947 but in 1948 they traded Stanky to the Braves to make room for Robby at second and Gil at first.

[jalbright]

Sorry, guys, but even if one believes there are more reasons to elect Hodges than reasons not to, the fact is, there are significant reasons against Hodges' election which are enough that reasonable people can differ.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

Charlie Silvera is a refutation of those who count rings instead of a player's actual performance. Charlie Silvera "won" a lot of rings but it was hardly because of his own performance. Tell me which team you'd rather have
P-GaPerry, FJenkins, TLyons
C-RFerrell
1B-JBeckley
2B-Lajoie
3B-Santo
SS-Banks (or Appling)
OF-EDelahanty
OF-Billy Williams
OF-EFlick

P-TByrne, Rosy Ryan, Jim Coates
C-Charlie Silvera
1B-Joe Collins
2B-JGilliam
3B-ACarey
SS-Jack Barry
OF-Amos Strunk
OF-Johnny Lindell
OF-Irv Noren

Hint: NO ONE from the first team EVER even GOT in the postseason, but the second team combined for FORTY-NINE WORLD championships :rolleyes:

Isn't it amazing that Banks, Williams, and Santo all played for the Cubs at the same time and they never won anything. I'd rather have a winner then a loser no matter how good the loser is any day of the week. It is actually easier to play for a loser, there is no pressure of a pennant race, so the stats are shallow. They are all shooting for their own personal stats on those out of contention Cubs teams. There were very few if any clutch at bats for these 3 Cubs, Dusty Rhodes of the Giants had more clutch meaningful at bats then all 3 Cubs combined.

[RuthMayBond]

In 1947 the Dodgers needed a first baseman so Jackie got the nod Stanky was at second in 1947 but in 1948 they traded Stanky to the Braves to make room for Robby at second and Gil at first.The point was, why would they move Jackie OFF first if he was already playing it and Hodges was capable of playing second?

[RuthMayBond]

Isn't it amazing that Banks, Williams, and Santo all played for the Cubs at the same time and they never won anything. I'd rather have a winner then a loser no matter how good the loser is any day of the week.No one's disputing this, I'm disputing HOW a team (or player) gets to be a winner

<They are all shooting for their own personal stats on those out of contention Cubs teams.>

Yeah, Banks always seemed so selfish :rolleyes:

<There were very few if any clutch at bats for these 3 Cubs, Dusty Rhodes of the Giants had more clutch meaningful at bats then all 3 Cubs combined.>

Which is a function of OPPORTUNITY and happenstance, NOT consistent skill. Are you related to ElHalo?

[KCGHOST]

Hodges was one of my favorite players when I was growing. Unfortunately that doesn't make him an HoFer.

[Cougar]

Isn't it amazing that Banks, Williams, and Santo all played for the Cubs at the same time and they never won anything. I'd rather have a winner then a loser no matter how good the loser is any day of the week. It is actually easier to play for a loser, there is no pressure of a pennant race, so the stats are shallow. They are all shooting for their own personal stats on those out of contention Cubs teams. There were very few if any clutch at bats for these 3 Cubs, Dusty Rhodes of the Giants had more clutch meaningful at bats then all 3 Cubs combined.

Hey Kramer, I'm on your side; Gil should be in.

But attacking 3 great players that have at least as good as claim on Cooperstown as Hodges does (and in Banks' case at least, a demonstrably better one) just undercuts your credibility.

[kramer_47]

Hey Kramer, I'm on your side; Gil should be in.

But attacking 3 great players that have at least as good as claim on Cooperstown as Hodges does (and in Banks' case at least, a demonstrably better one) just undercuts your credibility.

I was just making a point and telling the truth on what Ruthmaybond brought up. Don't attack my creditibility, it is alot easier to play when not in a pennant race. Everything I said was true, I didn't once say they didn't belong. I just said they were never on winners so there clutch situations in a pennant race was less then some of the lesser players like Rhodes.

[RuthMayBond]

I was just making a point and telling the truth on what Ruthmaybond brought up. Don't attack my creditibility, it is alot easier to play when not in a pennant race.How easy do you think it was to play in Cleveland for thirty-plus years figuring you'd never be in the postseason? I think the guys at that level have such a desire that they'd take being under pressure. But it reminds me of something a neighbor said. He complained in the mid-90s when the Tribe started doing something, saying he couldn't walk down the day of the game and get great seats. I said, huh?, you've been able to do that for almost FORTY YEARS, how about the playoffs for a change?

[kramer_47]

No one's disputing this, I'm disputing HOW a team (or player) gets to be a winner

<They are all shooting for their own personal stats on those out of contention Cubs teams.>

Yeah, Banks always seemed so selfish :rolleyes:

<There were very few if any clutch at bats for these 3 Cubs, Dusty Rhodes of the Giants had more clutch meaningful at bats then all 3 Cubs combined.>

Which is a function of OPPORTUNITY and happenstance, NOT consistent skill. Are you related to ElHalo?

It takes 25 players to be a winner so those lesser players you mentioned contributed more to their winning teams then some of the great players contributed to a losing team. Never said Banks was selfish just said it was easier to play for a loser in less pressure packed situations, and most players in that situation are playing for their next contract it is human nature.

[DoubleX]

Isn't it amazing that Banks, Williams, and Santo all played for the Cubs at the same time and they never won anything. I'd rather have a winner then a loser no matter how good the loser is any day of the week. It is actually easier to play for a loser, there is no pressure of a pennant race, so the stats are shallow. They are all shooting for their own personal stats on those out of contention Cubs teams. There were very few if any clutch at bats for these 3 Cubs, Dusty Rhodes of the Giants had more clutch meaningful at bats then all 3 Cubs combined.

Interesting side-note to this point. Those loser Cubs teams have 3 Hall of Famers (Banks, Williams, Jenkins), though Santo should really be in. While Hodge's winner Dodgers teams have 7 Hall of Famers - Robinson, Campanella, Snider, Reese, Koufax, Drysdale, and Alston. I'd say that those winning teams have been compensated in the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying this as an argument to keep Hodges out, just pointing out that the success of Hodges' teams has been recognized by the Hall.

[Brownie31]

Gil Hodges certainly belongs in the Hall of Fame. Far more than Bruce Sutter. Hodges not only had a long career as a regular on a string of excellent teams, he was also the manager of the 1969 World Champion Mets-accomplishing this with a franchise that had previously been a national joke. Brownie31

[RuthMayBond]

It takes 25 players to be a winner so those lesser players you mentioned contributed more to their winning teams then some of the great players contributed to a losing team.
The myth continues

<most players in that situation are playing for their next contract it is human nature.>

It all depends upon whether they just signed a contract or not :laugh

[kramer_47]

How easy do you think it was to play in Cleveland for thirty-plus years figuring you'd never be in the postseason? I think the guys at that level have such a desire that they'd take being under pressure. But it reminds me of something a neighbor said. He complained in the mid-90s when the Tribe started doing something, saying he couldn't walk down the day of the game and get great seats. I said, huh?, you've been able to do that for almost FORTY YEARS, how about the playoffs for a change?

If you are a good player it can't be easy being on a loser but there is no pressure like being on a pennant winner so they are basically playing for their stats. I feel bad for you Indians fans who never had anything real to root for after July most years, I'm happy they turned it around in the 90's because I'm a baseball fan. Your friend that complained was just happy to go to the game and get good seats I guess he was so use to losing that he didn't care anymore. Then the Indians have fans like you that were tired of losing and now you have been rewarded with better teams since the 90's, you have a pretty good team this year Shapiro has done a good job.

[kramer_47]

Interesting side-note to this point. Those loser Cubs teams have 3 Hall of Famers (Banks, Williams, Jenkins), though Santo should really be in. While Hodge's winner Dodgers teams have 7 Hall of Famers - Robinson, Campanella, Snider, Reese, Koufax, Drysdale, and Alston. I'd say that those winning teams have been compensated in the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying this as an argument to keep Hodges out, just pointing out that the success of Hodges' teams has been recognized by the Hall.

You can't consider Koufax or Drysdale they made there HOF stats in LA, if a player is deserving it doesn't matter how many teammates are in the HOF, Gil Hodges was a big part of those Dodgers teams and is deserving.

[kramer_47]

The myth continues

<most players in that situation are playing for their next contract it is human nature.>

It all depends upon whether they just signed a contract or not :laugh

Back when these guys played they played on one year contracts, Ralph Kiner led the National league in home runs and Branch Rickey cut his salary, Ralph asked why and Branch said we could have finished last without you.

[wamby]

In 1947 the Dodgers needed a first baseman so Jackie got the nod Stanky was at second in 1947 but in 1948 they traded Stanky to the Braves to make room for Robby at second and Gil at first.

That's not true about Hodges. In Spring Training 1948 the Dodgers had about seven candidates to take over at first and Hodges was not one of those candidates. The Sporting News (4/7/48) listed the Dodgers first base candidates as Tommy Brown, Dick Whitman, Preston Ward, Eddie Miksis, Jackie Robinson, Ray Sanders (injured at the time and soon to be returned to the Boston Braves) and Pete Reiser, who TSN made it sound like as being all but washed up. early in spring training, Durocher said that his best second baseman was Eddie Miksis. I don't know if Durochers was examining Robinson's waistline when he said that. Preston Ward began the season at first for Brooklyn, Gil Hodges was the opening day catcher for Brooklyn.
From the beginning of the season until the end of June, Ward and Robinson alternated at first, neither performing all that well. Ward was a 20 year old kid who probably belonged at Montreal and Robimson was struggling with his weight problem and was still playing out of position. The first day that I have seen an account of Hodges playing first was June 29, 1948 when the Phillies played at Ebbets Field. Hodges began a hot streak at bat and stuck as first baseman. I think moving Hodges was probably the last productive thing that Durocher did for the Dodgers.

Hodges ended up playing 96 games at first (he caught in 38 games), Robinson played 30 games at first (also 116 at second and 6 at third), Ward played 38 games at first. Tommy Brown played one game at first.

Rickey may have had a plan for Robinson, but there didn't seem to be any plan in the off-season for Hodges exceot to hold on to as a catcher.

The Dodgers infield seemed pretty unsettled for almost the entire first half of the 1948 season. I've read accounts about the Flatbush Faithful ready to run both Rickey and Durocher out of town after an extended losing streak at the end of May.

[wamby]

Interesting side-note to this point. Those loser Cubs teams have 3 Hall of Famers (Banks, Williams, Jenkins), though Santo should really be in. While Hodge's winner Dodgers teams have 7 Hall of Famers - Robinson, Campanella, Snider, Reese, Koufax, Drysdale, and Alston. I'd say that those winning teams have been compensated in the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying this as an argument to keep Hodges out, just pointing out that the success of Hodges' teams has been recognized by the Hall.

If you're counting Alston as a Hall of Famer for the Dodgers than you should add Leo Durocher to the Cubs list.

[kramer_47]

The point was, why would they move Jackie OFF first if he was already playing it and Hodges was capable of playing second?

Because 2nd base was Jackie's natural position.

[kramer_47]

That's not true about Hodges. In Spring Training 1948 the Dodgers had about seven candidates to take over at first and Hodges was not one of those candidates. The Sporting News (4/7/48) listed the Dodgers first base candidates as Tommy Brown, Dick Whitman, Preston Ward, Eddie Miksis, Jackie Robinson, Ray Sanders (injured at the time and soon to be returned to the Boston Braves) and Pete Reiser, who TSN made it sound like as being all but washed up. early in spring training, Durocher said that his best second baseman was Eddie Miksis. I don't know if Durochers was examining Robinson's waistline when he said that. Preston Ward began the season at first for Brooklyn, Gil Hodges was the opening day catcher for Brooklyn.
From the beginning of the season until the end of June, Ward and Robinson alternated at first, neither performing all that well. Ward was a 20 year old kid who probably belonged at Montreal and Robimson was struggling with his weight problem and was still playing out of position. The first day that I have seen an account of Hodges playing first was June 29, 1948 when the Phillies played at Ebbets Field. Hodges began a hot streak at bat and stuck as first baseman. I think moving Hodges was probably the last productive thing that Durocher did for the Dodgers.

Hodges ended up playing 96 games at first (he caught in 38 games), Robinson played 30 games at first (also 116 at second and 6 at third), Ward played 38 games at first. Tommy Brown played one game at first.

Rickey may have had a plan for Robinson, but there didn't seem to be any plan in the off-season for Hodges exceot to hold on to as a catcher.

The Dodgers infield seemed pretty unsettled for almost the entire first half of the 1948 season. I've read accounts about the Flatbush Faithful ready to run both Rickey and Durocher out of town after an extended losing streak at the end of May.

Great research Wamby, I knew Hodges played part of the year at catcher but I thought they had in mind to switch Robinson to his natural 2nd base position when they traded Stanky. Obviously they didn't have a plan if they said Miksis was their best 2nd baseman and played Ward at first, it had alot to do with Leo he never saw eye to eye with Jackie maybe Rickey twisted his arm and they made the 2 best moves they could by June 1948.

[wamby]

Great research Wamby, I knew Hodges played part of the year at catcher but I thought they had in mind to switch Robinson to his natural 2nd base position when they traded Stanky. Obviously they didn't have a plan if they said Miksis was their best 2nd baseman and played Ward at first, it had alot to do with Leo he never saw eye to eye with Jackie maybe Rickey twisted his arm and they made the 2 best moves they could by June 1948.

I think that Rickey had a definite plan to move Robinson to 2B in 1948 and I'm guessing that Leo probably thought the same thing. But I think Leo was also unhappy about losing Stanky. Stanky didn't help matters by going to press saying that Leo left him in the lurch.

My feeling is that Leo played up guys like Miksis and Ward as a heavy handed way to motivate Robinson. I think Leo was excited about the prosppect of managing a player like Robinson and was extremely mad to see Robinson come to camp 30 pounds overweight. I've read that Leo took it personally, that he didn't get the same Robinson that Burt Shotten had.

I think that Leo's first great move with the Dodgers was to bench himself and install Pee Wee Reese at short. I think his last great move was to install Hodges at first, before he moved to the Giants

[kramer_47]

I think that Rickey had a definite plan to move Robinson to 2B in 1948 and I'm guessing that Leo probably thought the same thing. But I think Leo was also unhappy about losing Stanky. Stanky didn't help matters by going to press saying that Leo left him in the lurch.

My feeling is that Leo played up guys like Miksis and Ward as a heavy handed way to motivate Robinson. I think Leo was excited about the prosppect of managing a player like Robinson and was extremely mad to see Robinson come to camp 30 pounds overweight. I've read that Leo took it personally, that he didn't get the same Robinson that Burt Shotten had.

I think that Leo's first great move with the Dodgers was to bench himself and install Pee Wee Reese at short. I think his last great move was to install Hodges at first, before he moved to the Giants

It was Leo's own fault he didn't get to manage Robinson when he came up, he was suspended for gambling in 1947. I think Leo not seeing eye to eye with Jackie because of his weight and I guess other things got him fired in 1948 but it didn't take the Giants long to pick him up as their manager. Bu t Leo is the guy to make the big changes in the Dodgers, Hodges to 1st, Robinson to 2nd and in the middle of 1948 Campy became the catcher before Leo was fired. I don't think Leo really wanted to move to the rival Giants I think he preferred being in Brooklyn but he just couldn't get along with Branch Rickey and the Dodgers didn't like his life style.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would put Hodges in the HOF, for his hybrid career as a player and as a manager. I normally do not believe in doing this; he is the only exception I can think of.

Hodges, I believe, has the highest average percentage of the BBWAA vote of any unsuccessful HOF candidate over 15 tries.

[yanks0714]

I would put Hodges in the HOF, for his hybrid career as a player and as a manager. I normally do not believe in doing this; he is the only exception I can think of.

Hodges, I believe, has the highest average percentage of the BBWAA vote of any unsuccessful HOF candidate over 15 tries.

Other than the 1969 Mets look at Hodges managerial career. It's not so hot and is certainly not HOF worthy.

Okay...15 tries and he still ain't in! That should tell you something.

Gil Hodges was a good player, a very nice man, was on one of baseball's most successful teams of the era, and one of the most beloved teams in baseball history.
-However-
If he had played for the St. Louis Browns or Philadelphia A's we wouldn't be haivng this conversation at all. Nobody would be promoting him for the HOF.

[milladrive]

I would put Hodges in the HOF, for his hybrid career as a player and as a manager. I normally do not believe in doing this; he is the only exception I can think of.

Torre's not an exception?

Other than the 1969 Mets look at Hodges managerial career. It's not so hot and is certainly not HOF worthy.

Okay...15 tries and he still ain't in! That should tell you something.

Gil Hodges was a good player, a very nice man, was on one of baseball's most successful teams of the era, and one of the most beloved teams in baseball history.
-However-
If he had played for the St. Louis Browns or Philadelphia A's we wouldn't be haivng this conversation at all. Nobody would be promoting him for the HOF.

Sadly, I have to agree, and I won't try to elaborate on that statement.

As much as I revere the great Gil, I just think he doesn't have the HOF credentials.

[brett]

Other than the 1969 Mets look at Hodges managerial career. It's not so hot and is certainly not HOF worthy.

Okay...15 tries and he still ain't in! That should tell you something.

Gil Hodges was a good player, a very nice man, was on one of baseball's most successful teams of the era, and one of the most beloved teams in baseball history.
-However-
If he had played for the St. Louis Browns or Philadelphia A's we wouldn't be haivng this conversation at all. Nobody would be promoting him for the HOF.

I agree that no one would be promoting him now, and shouldn't. He was, however, at one point among the all time leaders in home runs. Its almost hard to believe, but I remember reading a book when I was in 8th in 1985 grade about all of the 300 home run hitters at that point, and I think the book was written after the '61 season and there were 19 300 HR hitters at that point I believe.

Lets see

Ruth-714
Foxx-534
Williams-521
Ott-511
Gehrig-493
Musial-444
Snider-384
Matthews-370
Kiner-369
Mantle-364
Dimaggio-361
Hodges-361
Mize-359
Berra-340
Greenberg-331
Mays-322
Simmons-307
Hornsby-301
Klein-300

I know there were 19 because they added in Roger Maris to make 20 little chapters.

Point is, look at that list and it is a credit to the voters that they distinguished that Hodges was the one guy in that group that doesn't fit ESPECIALLY considering the team he played for, and his reputation as a good fielder. After '61 he was tied for 11th and would move into the top 9 before he retired.

[yanks0714]

I agree that no one would be promoting him now, and shouldn't. He was, however, at one point among the all time leaders in home runs. Its almost hard to believe, but I remember reading a book when I was in 8th in 1985 grade about all of the 300 home run hitters at that point, and I think the book was written after the '61 season and there were 19 300 HR hitters at that point I believe.

Lets see

Ruth-714
Foxx-534
Williams-521
Ott-511
Gehrig-493
Musial-444
Snider-384
Matthews-370
Kiner-369
Mantle-364
Dimaggio-361
Hodges-361
Mize-359
Berra-340
Greenberg-331
Mays-322
Simmons-307
Hornsby-301
Klein-300

I know there were 19 because they added in Roger Maris to make 20 little chapters.

Point is, look at that list and it is a credit to the voters that they distinguished that Hodges was the one guy in that group that doesn't fit ESPECIALLY considering the team he played for, and his reputation as a good fielder. After '61 he was tied for 11th and would move into the top 9 before he retired.

I liked Gil Hodges. I remember seeing him play his last several years. He was a kind, soft spoken man, with a ton of integrity, and a work ethic to be admired. A good player to boot. But he wasn't a HOF'er then and he still isn't.

On those Brooklyn Dodger teams of the 1950's I think Gil ranked down the list of players on that team who were more critical and valuable to the team: Snider, Reese, Robinson, Campanella, Newcombe as their ace, and maybe even Furillo.
Like I said, if Gil had played for the Browns, the A's, Braves, maybe even the Giants we wouldn't be having this discussion. But because he was a memeber of such a beloved team by the fans, a team that ripped away from their bosom, Gil Hodges gets more respect and love for the HOF than his playing career deserves.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hodges got a late start as a big league regular because of a combination of the war and dumb luck in 1948, as wamby points out.

Had there been no war, Hodges would have probably been a regular earlier, and probably would have gotten to 400 HRs. 400 HRs would have gotten HODGES in the HOF.

Hodges was very much a central star in the 1950s. He was probably the 4th best player on a successful team. I rate Hodges behind Robby, Campy, and Snider, but ahead of Reese and the rest. I also rate Hodges as the best 1B in the NL in the fifties, and, possibly, in all of baseball.

Hodges is the ONLY player I would support on the basis of combining his playing and managing careers to evaluate his place in baseball history. Hodges has become underrated as a manager, surprisingly. He didn't have it easy either in Washington OR with the Mets as a manager.

I think that the reason Hodges has the support for the HOF that other guys comparable to him don't have reflect's the fact that he was a central star figure in the NL. And a central star with the Dodgers. His case is surprisingly strong, and he is a SLUGGER who has many outside the stats attributes going for him (defense, leadership). His case is much better than people think. I'm not saying "If Perez, then Gil", but I'd rather have Gil than Tony in the HOF.

[Jim Abbott]

Put Hodges in Baby! Get him in already. Hodges was a great player, Manager and person.

[yanks0714]

Had there been no war, Hodges would have probably been a regular earlier, and probably would have gotten to 400 HRs. 400 HRs would have gotten HODGES in the HOF.

I give war credit to the players who had already established themselves and were interrupted such as Williams. Feller, and Greenberg. But not Hodges. His career had started yet. Would 400 HRs have gotten him into the HOF. Probably so.

Hodges was very much a central star in the 1950s. He was probably the 4th best player on a successful team. I rate Hodges behind Robby, Campy, and Snider, but ahead of Reese and the rest. I also rate Hodges as the best 1B in the NL in the fifties, and, possibly, in all of baseball.

I don't think he was the linchpin are a great Brroklyn team. Just to throw something at'cha: Stan Musial played a bit of 1B in the 50's as well. The Only reason folks always state the 1950's when stumoing for one of their players is that was when the Dodgers had their hey day...quite frankly it gets old.

Hodges is the ONLY player I would support on the basis of combining his playing and managing careers to evaluate his place in baseball history. Hodges has become underrated as a manager, surprisingly. He didn't have it easy either in Washington OR with the Mets as a manager.

His managing career??? Except for 1969 his managing career was below .500.

I think that the reason Hodges has the support for the HOF that other guys comparable to him don't have reflect's the fact that he was a central star figure in the NL. And a central star with the Dodgers. His case is surprisingly strong, and he is a SLUGGER who has many outside the stats attributes going for him (defense, leadership). His case is much better than people think. I'm not saying "If Perez, then Gil", but I'd rather have Gil than Tony in the HOF.

His case is surprisingly strong because you support him for the HOF. For those of us who don't....it's not a surprise that he doesn't merit the HOF. A "central star"? What is that?
Yeah, he was a great defensive 1B. Name one who is in the HOF primarily for his defense at 1B. That is one of the lest definitive defensive positions in baseball.
There are a number of sluggers who are not in the HOF.
I didn't support Tony Perex for the HOF either so that point is moot for me.

I've siad it before and I'll say it again: If Gil Hodges had played for the Browns, A's, or Braves we wouldn't even have this discussion. He is kept alive only becasue he is an old Brooklyn Dodger hero.

[iPod]

To me, the real essence of the Hodges debate, something that pro-Hodges people never talk about, is that there are about 10 or so first basemen outside the Hall who are, in all honesty, just as good as Gil Hodges was, as well as guys just as qualified at other positions, and guys with dual contributions just as impressive as, essentially, 370 HR + managing the '69 Mets. It's not fair to those guys to give Hodges a free pass because, after all, he was such a great guy.

[538280]

Hodges got a late start as a big league regular because of a combination of the war and dumb luck in 1948, as wamby points out.

Had there been no war, Hodges would have probably been a regular earlier, and probably would have gotten to 400 HRs. 400 HRs would have gotten HODGES in the HOF.

Hodges was very much a central star in the 1950s. He was probably the 4th best player on a successful team. I rate Hodges behind Robby, Campy, and Snider, but ahead of Reese and the rest. I also rate Hodges as the best 1B in the NL in the fifties, and, possibly, in all of baseball.

Hodges is the ONLY player I would support on the basis of combining his playing and managing careers to evaluate his place in baseball history. Hodges has become underrated as a manager, surprisingly. He didn't have it easy either in Washington OR with the Mets as a manager.

I think that the reason Hodges has the support for the HOF that other guys comparable to him don't have reflect's the fact that he was a central star figure in the NL. And a central star with the Dodgers. His case is surprisingly strong, and he is a SLUGGER who has many outside the stats attributes going for him (defense, leadership). His case is much better than people think. I'm not saying "If Perez, then Gil", but I'd rather have Gil than Tony in the HOF.

This is all about counting stats, how he was a central figure, but I ask did he deserve to be a central figure, and given the context he played in, are counting stats especially accurate to evaluate Gil Hodges? And even on the basis of counting stats, I don't know that Gil Hodges is in anyway. I very much dislike HOF Standards (because I don't think counting stats are an accurate measure), but they are a way of looking at counting stats, Hodges' HOF standards is 31.7. That is not HOF.

But like I said, counting stats really overrate Hodges very much. He played in a big hitting era in a big hitting park, and he was a 1Bman. Even if he was good defensively there, you expect big hitting numbers and defense isn't going to make that much of a difference. I don't see, anyway, how Hodges was anything resembling a special hitter. His OPS+ was 120 for god's sake. That could be okay if he had a VERY long career like Perez, but he doesn't.

I think Perez is CLEARLY better than Hodges. Perez had a higher OPS+ than Hodges over a MUCH longer career. He actually had two seasons (1970 and 1973) when he was a dominating player. His OPS+ those years were 159 and 163. Hodges' career high was 143. On top of that, Perez also played third base for part of his career, a much more important defensive position. So he has more career, in fact MUCH more career, was a better hitter at his best (and if you look at relative performance, he ABSOLUTELY was), and was at least as good defensively. IMO Perez was much better than Hodges.

[iPod]

I agree Chris. I HATE the Tony Perez-Gil Hodges argument. It used to be just because it was a bottom-feeder argument, one you can just as easily make for probably hundreds of players in baseball history. It later became apparent to me that not only is a bottom-feeder argument, but Tony Perez was better than Hodges anyway!

If you take all their seasons, average them, and look at the numbers of that average season per at-bat, Perez and Hodges look similar. Except Perez had 2700 more AB than Hodges, and had some genuinely big impact seasons where he was an MVP contender. For what it's worth, Perez is clearly superior in terms of win shares; 349 to 263 career, and 168 to 129 in five best consecutive seasons.

[leecemark]

--I seriously doubt that Hodges was regarded as a major star while active. The highest he ever finished in the MVP vote was 7th. He is 336th in MVP shares and would probably be more like 500th (or worse) if the award had been awarded consistently before the 1930s.

[Fuzzy Bear]

His case is surprisingly strong because you support him for the HOF. For those of us who don't....it's not a surprise that he doesn't merit the HOF. A "central star"? What is that?

His case is surprisingly strong because (A) Hodges has some outside the books advantages that many slugging 1B who don't have 500 HRs don't have, plus, he has some mitigating factors. His lost time to WWII is a mitigating factor. His Gold Glove defense at 1B is an outside the books advantage. That Gold Glove defense, by the way, is married to a rate of 29 HRs per 162 games; we're not talking Vic Power here.

Hodges was, during his career, no less than the 4th best player on a team that won six pennants and two World Championships. He was clearly behind Robinson, Snider, and Campy for career, but he was ahead of Campy some years, and, on balance, I believe he was ahead of Reese, given that Reese had much more defensive value. That's not a slam dunk HOFer, but it's a guy with a case.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, he was a great defensive 1B. Name one who is in the HOF primarily for his defense at 1B. That is one of the lest definitive defensive positions in baseball.

Again, Hodges great defense isn't standing alone; it's married to his offensive stats. It's not like putting Vic Power or Stuffy McInnis in the HOF.


There are a number of sluggers who are not in the HOF.
I didn't support Tony Perex for the HOF either so that point is moot for me.


The HOF has something of a prejudice against "sluggers". If a player has a .300 BA lifetime, in a long enough career, he'll get more HOF support than a "slugger" of comparable (or even greater) value. Gil Hodges is a superior player to a number of HOFers, including some HOF first basemen (Kelly, Bottomley), and while many of those picks are not good ones, they are there because of BA.


I've siad it before and I'll say it again: If Gil Hodges had played for the Browns, A's, or Braves we wouldn't even have this discussion. He is kept alive only becasue he is an old Brooklyn Dodger hero.

I realize how annoying the dying embers of the "Boys of Summer" sportswriters can be, but it is right and just that a first baseman from the Brooklyn Dodgers of Hodges' era is better remembered than someone from the Browns or A's of Hodges' era, or even the Braves of the forties (they, at least, won one pennant). The Browns and A's of Hodges' era were crummy teams; they were not memorable in any way.

The Brooklyn Dodgers of Hodges' era, on the other hand, were the dominant team in the NL. This is clear, and cannot be disputed. Even the 1959 Los Angeles Dodgers, a very weak World Champion, edged out a superior Brave team for the pennant, than beat the Go-Go Sox in six games.

Hodges was a big part of that. Without Hodges, the Dodgers would NOT have won pennants in 1956 and 1959, and would not have dominated the league to the extend they did in other years that they won the pennant. He was as central a figure to the Dodgers as Maris was to the Yankees, as Perez was to the Reds, as Bando was to the A's.

The fact that he was the 3-4 star on the Dodgers (arguably, their BEST player in 1959) is a point in his favor. The Brooklyn Dodgers are not remembered because they were a NEW YORK CITY team, they are remembered because they were a DOMINANT team. They were no less dominant than the Braves of the nineties, or the Reds of the seventies. These are the kinds of teams, by the way, that produce multiple HOFers; we've already got three from the Reds and a "felon-in-waiting" (oops, my bad :laugh ) in Pete Rose who would already have been in were it not for his own personal stupidity. The Black Sox would have 5 or 6 HOFers had Jackson and Cicotte not gone sour. Great teams are more memorable than mediocre ones, and great teams produce more HOFers than mediocre ones. That's just common sense, is it not?

Hodges isn't a guy with "no case at all". That's just not a defensible statement, given who the HOF has enshrined over its history. It's also not a defensible statement, given that Hodges had a higher percentage of the BBWAA vote of any unsuccessful candidate in their history. Hodges isn't a certain HOFer, but he's not someone who should be dismissed as having no case.

[yanks0714]

His case is surprisingly strong because (A) Hodges has some outside the books advantages that many slugging 1B who don't have 500 HRs don't have, plus, he has some mitigating factors. His lost time to WWII is a mitigating factor. His Gold Glove defense at 1B is an outside the books advantage. That Gold Glove defense, by the way, is married to a rate of 29 HRs per 162 games; we're not talking Vic Power here.

NO, I disagree. Chris outlined Hodges very well in a post yesterday. No, I do not agree that he lost time to WWII. Ted Williams lost time. Hank Greenberg lost time. Bob Feller lost time. Cecil Travis lost his career. Hodges hadn't even really started his career so I don't give credit to a career that hadn't even started by the time WWII began.
His GG defense? Fine. What about Keith Hernanadez? He's not in either. Defense at 1B is nothing special to me because it is not a critical defensive position. It's nice but far from essential.

Hodges was, during his career, no less than the 4th best player on a team that won six pennants and two World Championships. He was clearly behind Robinson, Snider, and Campy for career, but he was ahead of Campy some years, and, on balance, I believe he was ahead of Reese, given that Reese had much more defensive value. That's not a slam dunk HOFer, but it's a guy with a case.

Okay, I won't argue that point although I don't agree with it. But so what? He was the 3rd or 4th best player on a great team. Wanna put Boog Powell in the HOF because that's about what he was on the Oriole dynasty.

Again, Hodges great defense isn't standing alone; it's married to his offensive stats. It's not like putting Vic Power or Stuffy McInnis in the HOF.

Responded about 1B defense earlier. It's like the cherry on top of a sundae for a 1B.

The HOF has something of a prejudice against "sluggers". If a player has a .300 BA lifetime, in a long enough career, he'll get more HOF support than a "slugger" of comparable (or even greater) value. Gil Hodges is a superior player to a number of HOFers, including some HOF first basemen (Kelly, Bottomley), and while many of those picks are not good ones, they are there because of BA.

Poor argument. Bringing up Bottomley and Kelly doesn't count in my book. They were 'chosen' not 'elected' by the Frank Frisch Vets Committee where he managed somehow to get his buddies in the HOF. They shouldn't be in anyway.

I realize how annoying the dying embers of the "Boys of Summer" sportswriters can be, but it is right and just that a first baseman from the Brooklyn Dodgers of Hodges' era is better remembered than someone from the Browns or A's of Hodges' era, or even the Braves of the forties (they, at least, won one pennant). The Browns and A's of Hodges' era were crummy teams; they were not memorable in any way.

I love reading about the 'Boys of Summer'. Read that book and can glance at my bookshelves and see a number of books on the 1050's Brooklyn Dodgers. I don't get tired of and do not find discussion of the Brooklyn Dodgers at all. I delve into the Brooklyn Dodgers thread on BBF from time to time. Not to post, but just to read about the posts.
I do get tired and annoyed at folks who keep promoting Gil Hodges for the HOF. I liked Gil but he does not deserve the HOF. He...just...does...not...merit...inclusion.
Listen, I'll go even further. Brooklyn Dodger fans had their hearts broken when the team left for Los Angeles. The fact that Brooklyn lost its individual identity as a city when incorporated into NYC also hurts bad. I can understand that. It nearly makes me cry when I read some posts of those that can remember them and Ebbetts Field. They were loyal and loved their team. The team had a long and colorful history. But they have been gone for nearly 50 years. Promoting Hodges for the HOF is one of the few current activites they can still practice.

The Brooklyn Dodgers of Hodges' era, on the other hand, were the dominant team in the NL. This is clear, and cannot be disputed. Even the 1959 Los Angeles Dodgers, a very weak World Champion, edged out a superior Brave team for the pennant, than beat the Go-Go Sox in six games.
Hodges was a big part of that. Without Hodges, the Dodgers would NOT have won pennants in 1956 and 1959, and would not have dominated the league to the extend they did in other years that they won the pennant. He was as central a figure to the Dodgers as Maris was to the Yankees, as Perez was to the Reds, as Bando was to the A's.

I agree they were dominant for the era. I actually think they were a better 'team' than the Yankees in some of those years. As for the '59 dodgers,yes, they were a weak champion. The Braves somehow managed to not win their third consecutive pennant despite having more talent.
But we're talking teams here...not just Gil Hodges. Hodges contributed to the Dodger success, yes. Okay. Maris ain't in the HOF and doesn't belong. Sal Bando ain't in the HOF and doesn't belong (yes, Chris, I know you are a fan of Bando's but he's not HOF material either).
So, in '56 and '59 if not for Hodges the Dodgers wouldn't have won pennants? What if some of their other regulars weren't around or hurt, would they won anyway? How about Reggie Smith not being around for the '67 Red Sox...would they have won? Maybe, Yaz was their leader, but could they have won without Smith?

The fact that he was the 3-4 star on the Dodgers (arguably, their BEST player in 1959) is a point in his favor. The Brooklyn Dodgers are not remembered because they were a NEW YORK CITY team, they are remembered because they were a DOMINANT team. They were no less dominant than the Braves of the nineties, or the Reds of the seventies. These are the kinds of teams, by the way, that produce multiple HOFers; we've already got three from the Reds and a "felon-in-waiting" (oops, my bad :laugh ) in Pete Rose who would already have been in were it not for his own personal stupidity. The Black Sox would have 5 or 6 HOFers had Jackson and Cicotte not gone sour. Great teams are more memorable than mediocre ones, and great teams produce more HOFers than mediocre ones. That's just common sense, is it not?

The Dodgers were remembered because they were a beloved team of a Bourough that recognized theselves as singular within a huge city. By a core group of fanatical fans. An individual identity. The Dodgers stories go waaaay back to Babe Herman and before. Pete Reiser and before. Zack Wheat and before. They became dominant in the late 40's and during the early to mid 50's.
Just because some teams have several players enshrined is not a reason or an excuse to induct Gil Hodges. Great teams may well have several players inducted, true. But those Brooklyn Dodger teams already have Campy, Reese, Robinson, and Snider. If we put in Hodges is the bandwagon then going to start lobbying for Carl Furillo or Don Newcombe? Maybe Sandy Amoros or Billy Cox?
BTW, the only Black Sox that I see as HOF'ers were Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte. True, Faber and Schalk are in the HOF but none of Weaver, Felsch, or Williams was HOF caliber.

Hodges isn't a guy with "no case at all". That's just not a defensible statement, given who the HOF has enshrined over its history. It's also not a defensible statement, given that Hodges had a higher percentage of the BBWAA vote of any unsuccessful candidate in their history. Hodges isn't a certain HOFer, but he's not someone who should be dismissed as having no case.[/QUOTE]

I agree, Gil Hodges certainly has a case for the HOF. He's never been dismissed at all. His case has been reviewed often enough. But it's not worthy. 15 times he's tried and found wanting. Just because some unworthy players have been enshrined doesn't mean we should enshrine another. When I was at the HOF in 1994 (best trip I ever made) I didn't even bother with the plaques of the players I didn't think deserved to be in the HOF.
So Gil has the most votes of the BBWAA over the years. Somebody has to have that distinction. If we put him in should we then lobby for whomever is next in line?
Bottom line: The pro-Gil Hodges forum stats the same things over and over and over and over again and again. There is nothing new and won't be anything new anymore. There are other more deserving players outside the HOF than Gil Hodges. Ron Santo and Bill Dahlen to name two.

[Fuzzy Bear]

--I seriously doubt that Hodges was regarded as a major star while active. The highest he ever finished in the MVP vote was 7th. He is 336th in MVP shares and would probably be more like 500th (or worse) if the award had been awarded consistently before the 1930s.

Hodges was the best 1B in the NL during the fifties.

If Hodges were NOT regarded as a major star, he probably would not have done as well as he did in MVP voting.

I realize that contemporaries are sometimes wrong. The contemporaries of Looie Aparicio thought he was a great leadoff hitter. We know now that he wasn't. But the perception of Hodges as a major star and central figure on a great team WAS a perception of the observers of the time, and not something created after the fact.

[RuthMayBond]

Okay, I won't argue that point although I don't agree with it. But so what? He was the 3rd or 4th best player on a great team. Wanna put Boog Powell in the HOF because that's about what he was on the Oriole dynasty.Actually, just in terms of ML playing, Powell was probably slightly better :eek:

<I realize how annoying the dying embers of the "Boys of Summer" sportswriters can be, but it is right and just that a first baseman from the Brooklyn Dodgers of Hodges' era is better remembered than someone from the Browns or A's of Hodges' era, or even the Braves of the forties (they, at least, won one pennant). The Browns and A's of Hodges' era were crummy teams; they were not memorable in any way.>

So Charlie Silvera was better than Ernie Banks and Ron Santo?

I love reading about the 'Boys of Summer'. Read that book and can glance at my bookshelves and see a number of books on the 1050's Brooklyn Dodgers. I don't get tired of and do not find discussion of the Brooklyn Dodgers at all. I delve into the Brooklyn Dodgers thread on BBF from time to time. Not to post, but just to read about the posts.
I do get tired and annoyed at folks who keep promoting Gil Hodges for the HOF.

It's not as bad as the ones who swear Billy Cox had the best defensive 3B career ever :rolleyes:

<These are the kinds of teams, by the way, that produce multiple HOFers;>

Yeah, like Frisch's Giants :ughh

[538280]

Hodges was the best 1B in the NL during the fifties.

If Hodges were NOT regarded as a major star, he probably would not have done as well as he did in MVP voting.

I realize that contemporaries are sometimes wrong. The contemporaries of Looie Aparicio thought he was a great leadoff hitter. We know now that he wasn't. But the perception of Hodges as a major star and central figure on a great team WAS a perception of the observers of the time, and not something created after the fact.

How does Gil Hodges' record in MVP voting suggest that of a great star? He is 336th in MVP vote shares. That is NOT HOF territory. The BBWAA, at least, did not regard him as a major star at the time. Statistically I simply do not see how he's anywhere near as good as you seem to think. You say he has a lot going for him that other slugging 1Bmen don't. I don't see exactly what he has. His OPS+ is 120. I'm sorry, but that is just nothing even remotely special for a 1Bman. Even if you say his counting stats are good enough (which they're really not either for a 1Bman), then you have to remember he played in a big hitting era and park. In the context of his era Hodges was just nothing special as a hitter. As I said, his OPS+ is 120. You can't put a 1Bman in the HOF with a 120 OPS+, unless he has a career of 2500 or more games, and even then it's a mayble. Hodges actually had a short career though.

It is so ridiculous that Hodges gets more HOFs upport than Dick Allen. Allen is an example of a guy who REALLY WAS a truly great hitter in the context of his time. His career OPS+ of 156 is 13 points higher than Hodges' career high.

[Fuzzy Bear]

How does Gil Hodges' record in MVP voting suggest that of a great star? He is 336th in MVP vote shares. That is NOT HOF territory. The BBWAA, at least, did not regard him as a major star at the time. Statistically I simply do not see how he's anywhere near as good as you seem to think. You say he has a lot going for him that other slugging 1Bmen don't. I don't see exactly what he has. His OPS+ is 120. I'm sorry, but that is just nothing even remotely special for a 1Bman. Even if you say his counting stats are good enough (which they're really not either for a 1Bman), then you have to remember he played in a big hitting era and park. In the context of his era Hodges was just nothing special as a hitter. As I said, his OPS+ is 120. You can't put a 1Bman in the HOF with a 120 OPS+, unless he has a career of 2500 or more games, and even then it's a mayble. Hodges actually had a short career though.

It is so ridiculous that Hodges gets more HOFs upport than Dick Allen. Allen is an example of a guy who REALLY WAS a truly great hitter in the context of his time. His career OPS+ of 156 is 13 points higher than Hodges' career high.

I would not support Hodges for the HOF as a player, alone, although his case there is not without merit.

In Hodges' unique circumstance, I would support his induction for the entirety of his baseball career as a player and as a manager.

Hodges improved the Senators every year he was there. This despite the fact that (A) they were the second worst team in baseball when he came there, (B) they had crummy ownership, (C) there was no free-agency for an instant infusion of talent, and (D) the free agent draft didn't start until 1965, three years into Hodges' tenure in Washington. The sixties expansion teams started with a real bottom-of-the-barrel expansion draft. It was really hard to climb up from that. Hodges, nonetheless, got a terrible 1967 team to win 76 games. There are some who criticize Hodges' record in Washington; they need to look at the overall records of the sixties expansion teams that decade to see how slow overall progress was made. Hodges' record with the Mets is well documented, and all I will say about that is the he shouldn't be PENALIZED for his Miracle 1969 team, as some have done.

Statistically, the case for Dick Allen is much, much better than the case for Hodges. In fact, I would rather have had Gil Hodges than Dick Allen on my team. I go back and forth on the character issue, and it's often overrated, but there are so many accounts of Gil Hodges being a team leader in the Dodger clubhouse. Hodges kept the peace in the Brooklyn clubhouse, and was respected by all. The Dodgers won. Allen missed practices, missed games, showed up drunk, acted out. The Phillies underachieved.

I realize that Bill James has been pilloried for his comments about Allen, and there are two sides to the coin. What I remember, growing up, is a guy who jumped his club, was a source of constant controversy, and whose team fell from contention progressively. I remember that from when it went on, and I tell you, I would be hesitant to ever have such a guy on my team. Allen was the T. O. of baseball. Someday, teammates who LIKE Terrell Owens will say what a gamer he was, how tough he was, but there will be the other contingent stating how he was a disruptive butthead.

That's Allen; Terrell Owens the first. Hodges was as far away from that as you can get.

[538280]

I would not support Hodges for the HOF as a player, alone, although his case there is not without merit.

In Hodges' unique circumstance, I would support his induction for the entirety of his baseball career as a player and as a manager.

Hodges improved the Senators every year he was there. This despite the fact that (A) they were the second worst team in baseball when he came there, (B) they had crummy ownership, (C) there was no free-agency for an instant infusion of talent, and (D) the free agent draft didn't start until 1965, three years into Hodges' tenure in Washington. The sixties expansion teams started with a real bottom-of-the-barrel expansion draft. It was really hard to climb up from that. Hodges, nonetheless, got a terrible 1967 team to win 76 games. There are some who criticize Hodges' record in Washington; they need to look at the overall records of the sixties expansion teams that decade to see how slow overall progress was made. Hodges' record with the Mets is well documented, and all I will say about that is the he shouldn't be PENALIZED for his Miracle 1969 team, as some have done.

Statistically, the case for Dick Allen is much, much better than the case for Hodges. In fact, I would rather have had Gil Hodges than Dick Allen on my team. I go back and forth on the character issue, and it's often overrated, but there are so many accounts of Gil Hodges being a team leader in the Dodger clubhouse. Hodges kept the peace in the Brooklyn clubhouse, and was respected by all. The Dodgers won. Allen missed practices, missed games, showed up drunk, acted out. The Phillies underachieved.

I realize that Bill James has been pilloried for his comments about Allen, and there are two sides to the coin. What I remember, growing up, is a guy who jumped his club, was a source of constant controversy, and whose team fell from contention progressively. I remember that from when it went on, and I tell you, I would be hesitant to ever have such a guy on my team. Allen was the T. O. of baseball. Someday, teammates who LIKE Terrell Owens will say what a gamer he was, how tough he was, but there will be the other contingent stating how he was a disruptive butthead.

That's Allen; Terrell Owens the first. Hodges was as far away from that as you can get.

To begin with, Hodges' being a great guy is not necessarily something that I would call a HOF credential. It's great to be a nice guy, but it's not and it should not get you into the HOF. Tim Wakefield is as great a teammate as there has ever been, no one is going to put him in the HOF or anywhere near it. I don't consider Hodges' being a great guy a real argument for him going in.

As for Allen, it is not just teammates who speak as to what a gamer he was and how his reputation as a clubhouse cancer was totally overblown, but it is also his managers, coaches, and front office men. Read the comments of people like Gene Mauch in this article by Craig Wright:

http://www.expressfan.com/dickallenhof/docs/anotherview.pdf

I've shown that many times. I tend to think Allen could be a pain in the neck. You don't get SO much bad press and not have at least something be there. But I do think that there much of his reputation was trumped up and totally exaggerated, and I think that while Allen could be an airhead and not the best teammate, that it didn't do much bad for his team.

[iPod]

Hodges was the best 1B in the NL during the fifties.

If Hodges were NOT regarded as a major star, he probably would not have done as well as he did in MVP voting.

I realize that contemporaries are sometimes wrong. The contemporaries of Looie Aparicio thought he was a great leadoff hitter. We know now that he wasn't. But the perception of Hodges as a major star and central figure on a great team WAS a perception of the observers of the time, and not something created after the fact.

He clearly wasn't considered the driving force on those teams, or else he would have done better in MVP voting. The fact that he was consistently and often significantly outdone in the voting by his teammates suggests to me that he must have been considered a second-tier star on those teams. Some people argue that with all those stars on the team, Hodges was an MVP caliber player but was hurt significantly by vote splitting. However, there are plenty of examples of great teams having their members represented well in MVP voting despite competition on their own teams. During the Reds' glory years from 1970 into the late 70s, Bench won 2 MVPs, Morgan won 2, Rose won 1, and Foster won 1. The World War 2 Cardinals had three different players win back-to-back MVPs (Mort Cooper, Stan Musial, and Marty Marion). From 1961-63, three different Yankees won MVP awards (Maris, Mantle, Howard). Hell, man, even on Hodges' own teams, 3 of his own teammates won the award (Robinson, Campanella 3 times, and Newcombe).

Hodges' success in MVP voting is extremely disappointing for a potential HoF inductee. Moises Alou has done better than Hodges did. Billy Goodman did better. Fred Lynn did a lot better. So did Dan Quisenberry, a relief pitcher. So did Sal Bando, yet another guy supposedly buried beneath louder, more spectacular stars on great teams.

How did Hodges do in the years where he was a regular?

1949: 11th place overall, but 5th amongst Dodgers (behind Robinson 1st, Reese 5th, Furillo 6th, and Newcombe 8th)
1950: 8th place overall, 1st amongst Dodgers (but still behind, amongst others, Eddie Stanky, Del Ennis, and Granny Hamner)
1951: 16th place overall, but 5th amongst Dodgers (behind Campanella 1st, Roe 5th, Robinson 6th, and Reese 15th)
1952: 19th place overall, but 5th amongst Dodgers (behind Black 3rd, Robinson 7th, Reese 8th, Snider 9th, and Campy 10th)
1953: 14th place overall, but 7th amongst Dodgers (behind Campanella 1st, Snider 3rd, Erskine t-9th, Furillo t-9th, Reese 11th, and Robinson 12th)
1954: 10th place overall, but 3rd amongst Dodgers (behind Snider 4th and Reese 9th)
1955: Received no votes, but 6 Dodgers placed (Campanella 1st, Snider 2nd, Newcombe 7th, Reese 9th, Labine 15th, and Furillo 21st)
1956: Received no votes, but 8 Dodgers placed (Newcombe 1st, Maglie 2nd, Gilliam 5th, Reese 8th, Snider 10th, Robinson 16th, Furillo 21st, Labine 30th)
1957: 7th place overall, 1st amongst Dodgers (his best showing ever, everyone above him is a HoFer)
1958: Received no votes, but 2 Dodgers placed (Gilliam 19th, Furillo 23rd)
1959: 18th place overall, but 4th amongst Dodgers (Moon 4th, Neal 8th, and Craig 13th)

Even the most gung-ho Hodges supporter has to admit that this is pretty strange and isn't really consistent with the notion that Hodges was a star on the same level as Snider, Campanella, Robinson, and even Reese. Pee Wee Reese was a highly controversial and marginal selection for the Hall of Fame, yet he consistently impressed the writers more than Hodges did. Hodges didn't receive a single vote from anyone in 1955 or 1956, the years the Dodgers won the WS and then defended their title, although guys like Clem Labine were getting votes. That's just flat out bizarre, especially given that Hodges was a slugger who piled up HR and RBI, which the writers love. The only years Hodges outperformed all his teammates were in years when they didn't win the pennant, and he didn't place all that well, 8th and 7th.

[538280]

Boog Powell was mentioned earlier. I looked into him a bit more and he's actually a MUCH better hitter than Hodges in the context of his time as well. Not as good as Allen, but still clearly better than Hodges. Powell had three seasons (1964, 1969, 1970) in which he was a MUCH better hitter than Hodges ever was. He got on base a lot more than Hodges, actually hit for a better average in context, and had more power. He was just flat out better. You might say that Hodges was better defensively, and you'd be right, but as was said earlier defense is just the cherry on top of the sundae for 1Bmen, and Hodges' defensive edge is not big anyway, Powell was regarded to be very good at scooping balls out of the dirt, even if he was very immobile.

He also was a key member of a great team, and clearly was regarded in his time to be a major star, while Hodges was not. Powell won an MVP award in 1970, which is something Hodges never came even close to doing, and finished top 3 two other times. He is 88th in MVP vote shares, a MUCH stronger performance than Hodges. Boog Powell not only is better statistically, but clearly was regarded as a major star and a key part of the Orioles success, Hodges clearly was NOT regarded as a major star or nearly as much a huge part of the Dodgers' sucess. IMO Powell was clearly better than Hodges.

[yanks0714]

[QUOTE=iPod]
How did Hodges do in the years where he was a regular?

1949: 11th place overall, but 5th amongst Dodgers (behind Robinson 1st, Reese 5th, Furillo 6th, and Newcombe 8th)
1950: 8th place overall, 1st amongst Dodgers (but still behind, amongst others, Eddie Stanky, Del Ennis, and Granny Hamner)
1951: 16th place overall, but 5th amongst Dodgers (behind Campanella 1st, Roe 5th, Robinson 6th, and Reese 15th)
1952: 19th place overall, but 5th amongst Dodgers (behind Black 3rd, Robinson 7th, Reese 8th, Snider 9th, and Campy 10th)
1953: 14th place overall, but 7th amongst Dodgers (behind Campanella 1st, Snider 3rd, Erskine t-9th, Furillo t-9th, Reese 11th, and Robinson 12th)
1954: 10th place overall, but 3rd amongst Dodgers (behind Snider 4th and Reese 9th)
1955: Received no votes, but 6 Dodgers placed (Campanella 1st, Snider 2nd, Newcombe 7th, Reese 9th, Labine 15th, and Furillo 21st)
1956: Received no votes, but 8 Dodgers placed (Newcombe 1st, Maglie 2nd, Gilliam 5th, Reese 8th, Snider 10th, Robinson 16th, Furillo 21st, Labine 30th)
1957: 7th place overall, 1st amongst Dodgers (his best showing ever, everyone above him is a HoFer)
1958: Received no votes, but 2 Dodgers placed (Gilliam 19th, Furillo 23rd)
1959: 18th place overall, but 4th amongst Dodgers (Moon 4th, Neal 8th, and Craig 13th)

Pardon me for editing out some of your post. I appreciate this post. It really puts into context how Hodges was viewed in terms of his own team. As I've said before, he was only about, at best, the 4th most valuable Brooklyn Dodger.
It really gets under my skin to hear his fans say "Gil Hodges was the best 1B of the 50's." So what? What is so special about the 50's in and of themselves? Who was the bet 1B from 1922 to 1931? Or how about 1938 to 1947? Who cares? It's just that it coincided with the Brooklyn Dodgers run of success.
The 'Boys of Summer' fans are hanging onto their last glimpse of support for a team that has been gone for nearly 50 years. That's all Hodges pro-HOF support amounts to.

[yanks0714]

Boog Powell was mentioned earlier. I looked into him a bit more and he's actually a MUCH better hitter than Hodges in the context of his time as well. Not as good as Allen, but still clearly better than Hodges. Powell had three seasons (1964, 1969, 1970) in which he was a MUCH better hitter than Hodges ever was. He got on base a lot more than Hodges, actually hit for a better average in context, and had more power. He was just flat out better. You might say that Hodges was better defensively, and you'd be right, but as was said earlier defense is just the cherry on top of the sundae for 1Bmen, and Hodges' defensive edge is not big anyway, Powell was regarded to be very good at scooping balls out of the dirt, even if he was very immobile.

He also was a key member of a great team, and clearly was regarded in his time to be a major star, while Hodges was not. Powell won an MVP award in 1970, which is something Hodges never came even close to doing, and finished top 3 two other times. He is 88th in MVP vote shares, a MUCH stronger performance than Hodges. Boog Powell not only is better statistically, but clearly was regarded as a major star and a key part of the Orioles success, Hodges clearly was NOT regarded as a major star or nearly as much a huge part of the Dodgers' sucess. IMO Powell was clearly better than Hodges.

This is pretty much why I proposed Powell in an earlier thread. Boog was pretty much considered like Hodges, at best, the 4th best player on those O's teams behind Frank/Brooks Robnson and Jim Palmer.
Powell was a fine player, especially as a hitter. He was a feared hitter in those days. I can still remember the O's fans screaming 'Booooooog!'.
He didn't have much range at 1B but Brooks Robinson has talked about how many throwing errors Boog saved him in digging balls out of the dirt. I would imagine Mark Belanger and Davy Johnson appreciated him as well.
If you're ever at Camden Yards, make sure you stop by Boogs' Bar-B-Cue. He's usually there and more than willing to talk about old times. A most gregarious and outgoing fellow you've ever met.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He clearly wasn't considered the driving force on those teams, or else he would have done better in MVP voting. The fact that he was consistently and often significantly outdone in the voting by his teammates suggests to me that he must have been considered a second-tier star on those teams. Some people argue that with all those stars on the team, Hodges was an MVP caliber player but was hurt significantly by vote splitting. However, there are plenty of examples of great teams having their members represented well in MVP voting despite competition on their own teams. During the Reds' glory years from 1970 into the late 70s, Bench won 2 MVPs, Morgan won 2, Rose won 1, and Foster won 1. The World War 2 Cardinals had three different players win back-to-back MVPs (Mort Cooper, Stan Musial, and Marty Marion). From 1961-63, three different Yankees won MVP awards (Maris, Mantle, Howard). Hell, man, even on Hodges' own teams, 3 of his own teammates won the award (Robinson, Campanella 3 times, and Newcombe).

Hodges' success in MVP voting is extremely disappointing for a potential HoF inductee. Moises Alou has done better than Hodges did. Billy Goodman did better. Fred Lynn did a lot better. So did Dan Quisenberry, a relief pitcher. So did Sal Bando, yet another guy supposedly buried beneath louder, more spectacular stars on great teams.

How did Hodges do in the years where he was a regular?

1949: 11th place overall, but 5th amongst Dodgers (behind Robinson 1st, Reese 5th, Furillo 6th, and Newcombe 8th)
1950: 8th place overall, 1st amongst Dodgers (but still behind, amongst others, Eddie Stanky, Del Ennis, and Granny Hamner)
1951: 16th place overall, but 5th amongst Dodgers (behind Campanella 1st, Roe 5th, Robinson 6th, and Reese 15th)
1952: 19th place overall, but 5th amongst Dodgers (behind Black 3rd, Robinson 7th, Reese 8th, Snider 9th, and Campy 10th)
1953: 14th place overall, but 7th amongst Dodgers (behind Campanella 1st, Snider 3rd, Erskine t-9th, Furillo t-9th, Reese 11th, and Robinson 12th)
1954: 10th place overall, but 3rd amongst Dodgers (behind Snider 4th and Reese 9th)
1955: Received no votes, but 6 Dodgers placed (Campanella 1st, Snider 2nd, Newcombe 7th, Reese 9th, Labine 15th, and Furillo 21st)
1956: Received no votes, but 8 Dodgers placed (Newcombe 1st, Maglie 2nd, Gilliam 5th, Reese 8th, Snider 10th, Robinson 16th, Furillo 21st, Labine 30th)
1957: 7th place overall, 1st amongst Dodgers (his best showing ever, everyone above him is a HoFer)
1958: Received no votes, but 2 Dodgers placed (Gilliam 19th, Furillo 23rd)
1959: 18th place overall, but 4th amongst Dodgers (Moon 4th, Neal 8th, and Craig 13th)

Even the most gung-ho Hodges supporter has to admit that this is pretty strange and isn't really consistent with the notion that Hodges was a star on the same level as Snider, Campanella, Robinson, and even Reese. Pee Wee Reese was a highly controversial and marginal selection for the Hall of Fame, yet he consistently impressed the writers more than Hodges did. Hodges didn't receive a single vote from anyone in 1955 or 1956, the years the Dodgers won the WS and then defended their title, although guys like Clem Labine were getting votes. That's just flat out bizarre, especially given that Hodges was a slugger who piled up HR and RBI, which the writers love. The only years Hodges outperformed all his teammates were in years when they didn't win the pennant, and he didn't place all that well, 8th and 7th.

Hodges, and Reese were on the HOF ballot together from 1969-78. Duke Snider was on with all of them from 1970-78 and on with Hodges until his induction in the 1981 vote.

In his first year on the ballot, Hodges trailed Reese 26-24 percent. The rest of the way, Hodges led Reese significantly each year, ranging between 48 and 57 percent of the vote every year except one (1973).

More surprisingly, Hodges led Snider every year in BBWAA HOF balloting, and led Snider by MUCH larger margins than he let Reese.

Now I grant you that the low vote totals for Snider were a mistake; Snider was clearly the number 2 star; arguably, the number 1 star some years, with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Snider was clearly a better player than Hodges. But these HOF vote totals clearly indicate perceived value for Hodges.

Perhaps the vote totals subconsciously indicated support for the idea of Hodges as a HOFer on the strength of his playing AND managing put together. Hodges is the ONLY case in which I could advocate that for, but I don't think it's out of line in his unique case.

[538280]

Hodges, and Reese were on the HOF ballot together from 1969-78. Duke Snider was on with all of them from 1970-78 and on with Hodges until his induction in the 1981 vote.

In his first year on the ballot, Hodges trailed Reese 26-24 percent. The rest of the way, Hodges led Reese significantly each year, ranging between 48 and 57 percent of the vote every year except one (1973).

More surprisingly, Hodges led Snider every year in BBWAA HOF balloting, and led Snider by MUCH larger margins than he let Reese.

Now I grant you that the low vote totals for Snider were a mistake; Snider was clearly the number 2 star; arguably, the number 1 star some years, with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Snider was clearly a better player than Hodges. But these HOF vote totals clearly indicate perceived value for Hodges.

Perhaps the vote totals subconsciously indicated support for the idea of Hodges as a HOFer on the strength of his playing AND managing put together. Hodges is the ONLY case in which I could advocate that for, but I don't think it's out of line in his unique case.

I think this is a clear case when Hodges became thought of better after his career than he was while active. Perhaps managing the 1969 Mets, his early death, and people romanticizing on how great a guy he was led to people looking back at him to be better than he was. When he was active, people were able to tell he was not a truly great player. Today's statistical analysis also clearly shows this.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think this is a clear case when Hodges became thought of better after his career than he was while active. Perhaps managing the 1969 Mets, his early death, and people romanticizing on how great a guy he was led to people looking back at him to be better than he was. When he was active, people were able to tell he was not a truly great player. Today's statistical analysis also clearly shows this.

Yes, I agree with most of this, but for Hodges to go from his MVP performance to outpolling not just Reese, but Snider, as well, is a phenomenon new to me, at least. That Snider had to wait for his induction is understandable; the seventies were times when he was being compared to Mantle and Mays, instead of Earl Averill and Max Carey. That he was seriously outpolled by Hodges for a seven year period is absolutely startling.

[iPod]

Hodges, and Reese were on the HOF ballot together from 1969-78. Duke Snider was on with all of them from 1970-78 and on with Hodges until his induction in the 1981 vote.

In his first year on the ballot, Hodges trailed Reese 26-24 percent. The rest of the way, Hodges led Reese significantly each year, ranging between 48 and 57 percent of the vote every year except one (1973).

More surprisingly, Hodges led Snider every year in BBWAA HOF balloting, and led Snider by MUCH larger margins than he let Reese.

Now I grant you that the low vote totals for Snider were a mistake; Snider was clearly the number 2 star; arguably, the number 1 star some years, with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Snider was clearly a better player than Hodges. But these HOF vote totals clearly indicate perceived value for Hodges.

Perhaps the vote totals subconsciously indicated support for the idea of Hodges as a HOFer on the strength of his playing AND managing put together. Hodges is the ONLY case in which I could advocate that for, but I don't think it's out of line in his unique case.

What was the end result though? They got around to inducting Snider and Reese, and could have gotten around to inducting Hodges if they wanted. They didn't. My post about MVP balloting was actually meant to preempt the opposite argument which seems to be the basis for most Hodges cases: that Hodges wasn't elected by the BBWAA because they weren't there, they didn't appreciate his greatness, but the writers who watched him on a day-to-day basis knew he was great. If the BBWAA didn't elect him... and the writers of his day didn't treat him like a superstar... what does that leave him?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's another Gil Hodges thread that could be combined.

[jalbright]

I'll pass this time on merging the files, as we'd lose a poll that has some value.

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

What was the end result though? They got around to inducting Snider and Reese, and could have gotten around to inducting Hodges if they wanted. They didn't. My post about MVP balloting was actually meant to preempt the opposite argument which seems to be the basis for most Hodges cases: that Hodges wasn't elected by the BBWAA because they weren't there, they didn't appreciate his greatness, but the writers who watched him on a day-to-day basis knew he was great. If the BBWAA didn't elect him... and the writers of his day didn't treat him like a superstar... what does that leave him?

Some of this was the writers coming to their senses about Snider. Some of this was sentimentality for the 1950s New York Baseball era, whose sportswriters were still active. Those sportswriters got imput from Snider and Reese, who were still alive, whereas Hodges had passed away in 1972. Reese was also a media figure; he was a sportscaster who did NBC games for a while.

I consider Hodges to rank below Snider, but ahead of Reese, who I view as being overrated. You can imagine, of course, how I feel about Phil Rizzuto.