No wonder GIL can't get in

[webmaster]

I owe each of you here an apology. I deleted this entire thread. If I could give an excuse it would be that I was tired and a bit upset. I had to give up my Sunday away from my family due to problems at work. Yesterday I worked 16 hours at work. Today I had a short day, only 14 hours. I got home and there were a LOT of Private Messages. Most were about members who were a bit off topic. One of them pointed to this thread and I deleted not the post, but the entire thread. I did not even realize I did it until I got up to fix my daughter her nightly warm chocolate milk and heard the email sound, sat back down, saw the PM that asked about the thread then realized I screwed up.

I am sorry. :o

Now, if possible, can somebody tell me why Gil can't get in?

[bigbum]

If we want to get Big Gil into the HOF,maybe we should do it one step at a time.
What if we true "Dodger" fans contacted the living players that he not only played with, but also the ones he played against, to assist us. Also, what
about first getting his number retired with you know who.

If you are really Dodger fans, and you saw him play you KNOW that he was
a great defensive first baseman, probably the best of his era, and he wasn't too shabby at the plate either.

I am sure that you all remember that he was a part of one of the greatest
infields ever that already has three HOF'ers. Unfortunately, No. 3, ,the Greatest defensive 3rd baseman I've ever seen can,t make, but that's another story.

What are your thoughts about this?

[DODGER DEB]

If we want to get Big Gil into the HOF,maybe we should do it one step at a time.
What if we true "Dodger" fans contacted the living players that he not only played with, but also the ones he played against, to assist us. Also, what
about first getting his number retired with you know who.

If you are really Dodger fans, and you saw him play you KNOW that he was
a great defensive first baseman, probably the best of his era, and he wasn't too shabby at the plate either.

I am sure that you all remember that he was a part of one of the greatest
infields ever that already has three HOF'ers. Unfortunately, No. 3, ,the Greatest defensive 3rd baseman I've ever seen can,t make, but that's another story.

What are your thoughts about this?


First, bigbum, welcome to OUR Forum. Always nice to add new loyal Brooklyn Dodger Fans to OUR group.

As for GIL getting into the HOF, if you go back and read some of the threads over the past few years, you will see that all the topics you raise have been covered, and then some.

That "west coast group" will NOT retire Gil's number #14, until he is voted into the HOF. It's a policy they have, and have had for years. The only exception they made to this policy was Jim Gilliam's #19.

All the members of the old Veterans Committee were contacted, over and over again in years past, on Gil's behalf....to no avail. There was a huge stumpling block on the Committee at that time, and his name was Ted Williams, who, for personal reasons, did not want to see Gil elected. So, it never happened. With this new group, it's just a matter of educating those who never saw Gil play, or manage for that matter. Hopefully they will see the light before too much time passes.

c.

[LouGehrig]

What was the story with Williams and Hodges? Was it related to Williams and Hodges managing Washington?

[kramer_47]

Ted Williams was just a real SOB, he wasn't well liked when he played and when he was older he was still an Sob with a big ego. Not many people disliked Gil Hodges but Ted Williams had alot of pull on that politically oriented oldtimers committee just look at the election of Bobby Doerr, Red Schoendienst, and Bill Mazeroski. It is ashame that they let this comittee go on for so long, the new committee has alot of egos on it but maybe they will finally vote in Gil in 2007.

[iPod]

What was the story with Williams and Hodges? Was it related to Williams and Hodges managing Washington?

I don't think it was anything other than Williams was a prominent member of the VC and was really opposed to Gil Hodges getting in.

[donzblock]

Did Gil and Ted start to hate each other after doing that full page cigarette ad where they are pictured in living color standing back to back?

[strummer]

The story I have been told for years, and which sounds true, is that unfortunately we should blame Hodges popularity and the in-your-face attitude of the Washington Senators fans. Those fans loved Hodges when he managed the Senators and regretted him leaving for the Mets. Williams became the new manager of the Senators, and, either from the very beginning or shortly thereafter, as he was not having too much success with the team, the fans not only got on Ted's back, but really pushed his button by loudly proclaiming day after day "Bring Back Hodges"!

[DODGER DEB]

The story I have been told for years, and which sounds true, is that unfortunately we should blame Hodges popularity and the in-your-face attitude of the Washington Senators fans. Those fans loved Hodges when he managed the Senators and regretted him leaving for the Mets. Williams became the new manager of the Senators, and, either from the very beginning or shortly thereafter, as he was not having too much success with the team, the fans not only got on Ted's back, but really pushed his button by loudly proclaiming day after day "Bring Back Hodges"!

You have pretty much "hit the nail right on the head", strummer.

c.

[Aa3rt]

The story I have been told for years, and which sounds true, is that unfortunately we should blame Hodges popularity and the in-your-face attitude of the Washington Senators fans. Those fans loved Hodges when he managed the Senators and regretted him leaving for the Mets. Williams became the new manager of the Senators, and, either from the very beginning or shortly thereafter, as he was not having too much success with the team, the fans not only got on Ted's back, but really pushed his button by loudly proclaiming day after day "Bring Back Hodges"!

Folks, I've heard this point made before. I'm afraid I was a little too young to have picked up on the behind the scenes goings on of the Washington Senators managerial scene-however, everyone seems to forget that Gil left after the 1967 season, with the Senators finishing at 76 & 85, 6th place in the (then) 10 team league. In 1968, Jim Lemon was the Senators manager and the team responded by going 65 & 96 and dropping to a 10th place finish. Ted Williams took over in 1969 and led the expansion Senators to their only over .500 finish, 86 & 76, 4th place in the new 6 team Eastern Division.

Expansion Senators Managers & records:

http://baseball-almanac.com/mgrtmtr2.shtml

[kramer_47]

KGCHOST I'd like you to name all first baseman better then Gil, Gil was the best First baseman of the 1950's hands down. I don't know who your favorite team or player was or how old you are but i saw Gil and the Dodgers play and I know one thing he is the best player of that era not in the HOF.

[55 chmps]

A real problem with Hodges candidacy is that there are so many 1B's better than him who aren't in the HoF. And that forces his proponents to try and trick people by saying he should get extra credit because he managed some teams and had one WS winner. As a manager his teams won at a .467 clip. You take out the miracle year and his record is real ugly.

As a Brooklyn born boy I am very fond of Gil Hodges, but he isn't an HoFer any way you slice the pie.

KCGHOST, let me ask you a question. I don't know who your favorite team is now, but say your first baseman has hit the most homeruns by a right handed hitter in NL history at the time of his retirment. Would you think he should be in the Hall of Fame? That's what Hodges did. And he had an amazing glove. Bill Mazeroski made it to the HOF because he was great definsivley, so did Ozzie Smith, and they sucked at batting. Hodges in my opinion was the complete package. Some people say that Hodges choked in pressure situations, thats why he can't get in the HOF. I don't buy it. I never saw him play or coach, but i've heard stories from my dad when he was manager with the mets and he should be in the hall even if his managerial record wasn't to hot. But some players got in the HOF with crappy managerial records but were still good ballplayers. Gil was loved by everyone he played for, even if his team didn't have the best record. Maybe I haven't persuaded anyone on this topic, but i just wanted to get my point across. I expect to see Gil's plaque in the Hall of Fame very soon. This is what the commitee should keep in mind.

[tonypug]

KCGHOST, let me ask you a question. I don't know who your favorite team is now, but say your first baseman has hit the most homeruns by a right handed hitter in NL history at the time of his retirment. Would you think he should be in the Hall of Fame? That's what Hodges did. And he had an amazing glove. Bill Mazeroski made it to the HOF because he was great definsivley, so did Ozzie Smith, and they sucked at batting. Hodges in my opinion was the complete package. Some people say that Hodges choked in pressure situations, thats why he can't get in the HOF. I don't buy it. I never saw him play or coach, but i've heard stories from my dad when he was manager with the mets and he should be in the hall even if his managerial record wasn't to hot. But some players got in the HOF with crappy managerial records but were still good ballplayers. Gil was loved by everyone he played for, even if his team didn't have the best record. Maybe I haven't persuaded anyone on this topic, but i just wanted to get my point across. I expect to see Gil's plaque in the Hall of Fame very soon. This is what the commitee should keep in mind.
Just to expand on 55chmps very astute observations. Hodges also was the National League leader in grand slam home runs at the time he retired. People point to his o for 21 in the 52 World Series,but don't mention that the next year, 1953 he hit 364 in the World Series. His overall series batting average is 264, not bad considering that 0 for 21 is included. In the 1955 series 7th game he had the only 2 RBI's, otherwise we might not have had that 55 championship, and been talking about Podres and Amoros. If more people did their homework like 55chmps, Gil would already be in the Hall of Fame.

[kramer_47]

Very good points guys, he was the best 1st baseman, best righthanded hitter in the major leagues from 1950-59. He had 310 home runs and 1001 rbi in the 50's, that's an average of 31 homers and 100 rbi a year. Tony he was the grand slam leader until 1972, all those other great hitters in the 50's and 60's and it took Hank Aaron til then to tie Gil. You are right Tony the grand slams show he was clutch, he was only in a slump during the 52 WS and early in 1953 then he was back to his old self. What about the 4 homers in a game in 1950 and Gil hitting for the cycle in 1949. You know there are only 2 other players since 1900 other Gil to accomplish these 2 feats, both are in the Hall of Fame, Lou Gehrig and Chuck Klein. Good job 55 Chmps and Tonypug.

[runningshoes]

What are the comparisons, if any, between Johnny Mize and and Gil Hodges. Mize played 1884 games in a 15 year Career and Hodges played 2071 games in an 18 year career. They both finished with approximately the same amount of hits. I think Mize had 100 or so more, and they are separated by less than 100 RBI's.

The glaring difference to me is Mize's .312 average opposed to Hodges' .273

Did the writers missed the boat with Mize and does Hodges' defensive value make up the difference?

[runningshoes]

It means alot when you played on 7 teams that went to the World Series.
In the rules for election, one rule is contribution to your team.

Ok, so what did the writers not see that the VC is expected to see?

You talked about Dick Allen in another thread not garnishing enough votes for election, but Hodges sits in the same boat; a boat the writer's put him in.

[kramer_47]

That is the $64,000 Question, Gil was in the top 5 or better on the writers ballot for 12 of 15 years on the ballot, his last year he got 63.4% of the vote. Then his years on the Veterans ballot before new committee were a joke watching the older members make deals to get there buddies in, thats why they made the new committee. The new committee is tough and Gil still got 65% of the vote 52 votes, even though 3 didn't vote for anyone Reggie, Schmidt and someone else. You have to realize this veterans committee really don't want to vote anyone in, they feel they are the elite and have big egos, they may have to revamp the veterans committee. I think this time Gil and maybe even Santo could get in, both gained votes in the last election. As far as Richie goes I think he should be in but the voters aren't supporting him.

[yanks0714]

During the Brooklyn Dodgers heyday, tell me one category that Gil Hodges led the team in?

Gil was a fine player and an even finer gentleman. But that is not the qualification for the HOF.

Gil was, at best, about the 5th most valuable player on those Dodger teams behind Pee Wee, Jackie, Campy, and The Duke. I suspect that Furillo and Newcombe may well have been more valuable too....at least an argument can be made for them.

Please do not bring up Gil's managerial career. Other than the '69 Mets, Gil's managment career is very lackluster.

I suspect that Hodges keeps coming close to the HOF vote because there is a grass roots support for him that keeps trumpeting his name for the HOF.

Am I doing to this post to be argumentive, mean, nasty, and sarcastic? Not at all. I liked Gil Hodges a lot. Just as I was huge Don Mattingly fan. But neither belongs in the HOF.

[yanks0714]

Ted Williams was just a real SOB, he wasn't well liked when he played and when he was older he was still an Sob with a big ego. Not many people disliked Gil Hodges but Ted Williams had alot of pull on that politically oriented oldtimers committee just look at the election of Bobby Doerr, Red Schoendienst, and Bill Mazeroski. It is ashame that they let this comittee go on for so long, the new committee has alot of egos on it but maybe they will finally vote in Gil in 2007.
I cannot, will not, accept that statement. Are you well aware that it was Ted Williams who stumped hard for Duke Snider's induction. Chiding voters. Promoting Snider's credentials. Canvassing the voters that Snider was worthy. Ted spent much time and effort on getting Snider elected. In the meantime The Duke was seething that he was constantly passed over. his comments on this were probably taken out of context but struck a discord with the HOF voters. A large measure of The Duke finally being inducted was due to Ted Williams.

If the Brooklyn Dodgers fans would look at it without bias you might be able to see that perhaps, just perhaps, Ted Williams did not feel Gil Hodges was worthy of induction.

There are many HOF mistakes in Cooperstown (mostly courtesy of Frankie Frisch who on the Vets Committee) and they should not be used as a guage to induct Hodges.

As I mentioned on another post, Gil was fine player and even finer gentleman. But he was not a HOF player.

[kramer_47]

During the Brooklyn Dodgers heyday, tell me one category that Gil Hodges led the team in?

Gil was a fine player and an even finer gentleman. But that is not the qualification for the HOF.

Gil was, at best, about the 5th most valuable player on those Dodger teams behind Pee Wee, Jackie, Campy, and The Duke. I suspect that Furillo and Newcombe may well have been more valuable too....at least an argument can be made for them.

Please do not bring up Gil's managerial career. Other than the '69 Mets, Gil's managment career is very lackluster.

I suspect that Hodges keeps coming close to the HOF vote because there is a grass roots support for him that keeps trumpeting his name for the HOF.

Am I doing to this post to be argumentive, mean, nasty, and sarcastic? Not at all. I liked Gil Hodges a lot. Just as I was huge Don Mattingly fan. But neither belongs in the HOF.
Yanks alot of people make the same argument you are making but you're all wrong, Gil was 1st, second or 3rd in homers and rbi on every Dodgers team from 1949-59 and you can look it up. Did you read above where i said Gil was the leading righthanded homer hitter(310) and rbi man (1001) in the majors leagues from 1950-59. Go over to the other thread "Gil Hodges" and you'll see a Sporting News cover from August 1960 where Gil was considered for "player of the decade" with 8 others already in the HOF. What I wrote here is all fact and I don't know where the misconception came about that Gil was a lesser part of the Dodgers then he was, he batted from 4-7 in that lineup alot of times without the protection the others you named were getting.

[yanks0714]

The story I have been told for years, and which sounds true, is that unfortunately we should blame Hodges popularity and the in-your-face attitude of the Washington Senators fans. Those fans loved Hodges when he managed the Senators and regretted him leaving for the Mets. Williams became the new manager of the Senators, and, either from the very beginning or shortly thereafter, as he was not having too much success with the team, the fans not only got on Ted's back, but really pushed his button by loudly proclaiming day after day "Bring Back Hodges"!
Rather strange when you consider that Ted Williams didn't replace Gil Hodges. Jim Lemon (or was it Bob Lemon) is the guy who replaced Gil.

Also strange when you consider that Gil never had a winning record in all his years as Senator Manager. In Ted's first year (1969) he led the Senators to a winning record. He also got guys like automatic out Eddie Brinkman to have his best year, by far, at the plate. Got Chuck Hinton squared away.

The fans never chanted for Hodges. Ever. He was viewed as a failure by both the Washington press and the fans.

I read a great deal on Ted Williams and never once heard about a disagreement or grudge against Gil Hodges.

BTW, the vets committe that stocked the HOF with unworthy choices was Frankie Frisch, not Ted Williams.

Ted, like many non-Brooklyn Dodger fans, simply don't feel Hodges qualifies as a HOF'er.

[yanks0714]

KGCHOST I'd like you to name all first baseman better then Gil, Gil was the best First baseman of the 1950's hands down. I don't know who your favorite team or player was or how old you are but i saw Gil and the Dodgers play and I know one thing he is the best player of that era not in the HOF.
I'm glad you got to see Gil Hodges play. I'm sure it was treat. I am NOT being sarcastic. BUT, my late Dad was a fan of the Baltimore Orioles in his later years. He watched them ALL the time. He drew the conclusion that Brady Anderson was the finest CF'er in the AL if not all of baseball.

The best 1B of the NL was.....Stan Musial.

Big Klu and Joe Adcockwere not chopped liver either.

[kramer_47]

I'm glad you got to see Gil Hodges play. I'm sure it was treat. I am NOT being sarcastic. BUT, my late Dad was a fan of the Baltimore Orioles in his later years. He watched them ALL the time. He drew the conclusion that Brady Anderson was the finest CF'er in the AL if not all of baseball.

The best 1B of the NL was.....Stan Musial.

Big Klu and Joe Adcockwere not chopped liver either.

Stan was an outfielder most of the time about 1/3 of his games were at 1st base spread over his 20+ year career. As far as Klu and Adcock go read above I already explain myself on that one. Team contribution is big when your team wins like the Dodgers dominated in the late 40's and 50's, Klu played in one world series 1959, Joe Adcock appeared in 2 World Series 1957-58 but really didn't contribute that much. Alot of great players had great stats but there teams hardly won anything, look at Ted Williams one 1948, Ernie Banks none.

[kramer_47]

--He was a big part, but a replaceable one. Robinson, Campanella and Snider were the elite players off that team. Reese was also clearly more important than Hodges. Furillo was probably about equally important. That makes Hodges the 5th or 6th best position player on the team.
--The Dodgers were a great team. but nobody is seriously going to argue they were the best ever. How many teams have the majority of their lineup in the Hall? The 50s Dodgers already have half. Their fans should be happy with that. Although I guess since they haven't had any players to root for since then, their obsession with the last generation of Bums is understandable.

leecemark the Tigers and Mariners, you really never had the joy of a consistant winner and that's ashame you never experienced what most of us Dodgers fans have. You really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Gil Hodges, I suggest you look a little more at his full record, dig a little deeper instead of throwing out names without mentioning facts. Most people look at that OPS+ and a few other things and say well he shouldn't be there, i'm going to present the full picture soon, you and others will be surprised and how big a part of those great Dodgers teams he was.

[kramer_47]

--If your presentation is going to claim Hodges was any more than the 5th best player (behind Robinson, Campanella, Snider and Reese) on the team then you probably ought to spend the time on something else. Ain't nobody going to be buying what you've got to sell.

See you're comparing apples and oranges, this was a great team and everyone had a job to do, we're not comparing here we're showing you that Gil was a great compliment to these other great players. See everyone looking in at this team wants to say who was the best player or the 2nd best but us Dodgers fans look at it as a team with different parts. Peewee batted second trying to get on for the other 3 also trying to move over the number1 hitter probably Furillo or Cox, also was part of our great infield. Duke batted third, great hitter great power guy, the best centerfield of the 3 in NY in the 50's. Jackie batted 4th great hitter, very fast, decent rbi guy, knew how to get on base and create havoc also a pretty good second baseman. Campy or Gil batted 5 or 6 when it came to hitting they were the closest. Campy was a few years older a good hitter with power but he was the greatest catcher in the 50's. Gil was your power guy along with Campy and Duke, Gil also knew how to get on base and knock in runs, he knocked in 100 runs 7 years in row.Gil was also an all star 8 times because he was the best righthanded power hitter of the 1950's with 310 homers and 1001 rbi and the best 1st baseman in the National league he won the fisrt 3 golld gloves at 1st base.
I really just skimmed the surface but Gil isn't competing with any of these great players he was just a teammate that was a big part of those great teams.

[tonypug]

When Gil Hodges hit his 370th home run in 1962 he became the number one righthanded home run hitter in National League history, passing Ralph Kiner. How many players have had that distinction and are not in the Hall of Fame?

[leecemark]

--I think the correct answer is two, Lip Pike and Gavy Craveth. Both held the record much longer than the 7 months Hodges had it.

[kramer_47]

--I think the correct answer is two, Lip Pike and Gavy Craveth. Both held the record much longer than the 7 months Hodges had it.
How many can say they were the best righthanded power hitter homeruns and rbi for a whole decade.

[kramer_47]

--13? At least I'd assume somebody can make that claim for each decade of NL history. Decade lists are more trivia than anything else though. Being at the top of one is largely a matter of luck. Hodges best 10 years just happened to fit neatly into the 50s. He was never the best RH hitter in any one year and lots of his contemporaries had better 10 year runs. They just didn't happen to be 1950-59 (Kiner, Mays, Aaron, F. Robinson and Banks off the top of my head, but I suspect there are several more if I looked them).

You never had the privilege of seeing most of the names you mentioned play because at 46 you are too young to have seen the golden era of baseball. You got alot of ifs, would've, should've, it was luck, well I got news for you it happened and I saw it happen. Gil did hit all those homers and knock in all those runs it wasn't luck but skill. It wasn't Klu or Adcock playing for the Dodgers it was Gil. He may have not led the league but to be the best of the 50's he was in the top 2-10 in almost every year. While we're at it of all the names you mentioned of some very good players how many pennants did they win, none won more then Gil, no matter how great you are winning is the bottom line.

[kramer_47]

-If Adcock or Klu had switched places with Hodges they would have won as many - or more pennants as he did. Winning is a team thing and Hodges was just a cog in the wheel of a great one. Hodges was good, but no better than alot of other firstbasemen not in Cooperstown. I never said it was luck that he hit his HR or got his RBI (although he was lucky to have so many guys on base to knock in). What I said was he was lucky that his best years happened to be all in one decade so people could call him (inaccurately) the best RH hitter of the 50s. But hey, its nice to have somebody tell me I'm too young for something;) . I haven't heard that for a few years now.

There you go again with IF,If you got hit by a truck 10 years ago we wouldn't be talking but thank God you didn't, if you looked at the stats for that era Klu had 4 good years and Adcock had 1 he didn't peak till the late 50's, so IF the Dodgers had either they wouldn't have done as well from 1949-57.Hodges wasn't a cog in the wheel he was a big part of the wheel, how could you call a player of Hodges ability a cog in the wheel. Lets face it Gil was there he did what was needed to help his teammates and they won. Again I ask you to do some research to see the clear picture of why Gil was an important part of the Brooklyn Dodgers great teams, no other team in history other then the Yankees were better for a longer period of time. Lets forget about luck Gil was the best righthanded power hitter of the 50's and that is fact.

[yanks0714]

There you go again with IF,If you got hit by a truck 10 years ago we wouldn't be talking but thank God you didn't, if you looked at the stats for that era Klu had 4 good years and Adcock had 1 he didn't peak till the late 50's, so IF the Dodgers had either they wouldn't have done as well from 1949-57.Hodges wasn't a cog in the wheel he was a big part of the wheel, how could you call a player of Hodges ability a cog in the wheel. Lets face it Gil was there he did what was needed to help his teammates and they won. Again I ask you to do some research to see the clear picture of why Gil was an important part of the Brooklyn Dodgers great teams, no other team in history other then the Yankees were better for a longer period of time. Lets forget about luck Gil was the best righthanded power hitter of the 50's and that is fact.
All I can say after reading this thread is you haven't convinced me of Hodges' case to be inducted in the HOF. Since I do like Gil Hodges I was hoping this board would give me some more info for me to support Gil's case. But all I really got was the same old, tired, worn out, and disputed arguments.

Your argument that Gil had the most HRs in a decade...well a number of players can make that claim based upon decade. Leecemark and I have both pointed out that Gil's career fits nice and snug with the 50's decade...but that's not impressive at all.

I think Hodges was replaceable as the Didgers 1B. Not so with jackie, Pee Wee, Duke, or Campy. I suspect the Dodgers would have just as good with Dolph Camilli or State Garvey, a pre and post Dodgers' 1B.

The most HR's by a RH'ed hitter at retirement....barely, if at all.

I realize that Hodges is an icon to old Brooklyn fans. I am glad for that. But outside of old Brooklyn fans....he doesn't cut it.

[kramer_47]

All I can say after reading this thread is you haven't convinced me of Hodges' case to be inducted in the HOF. Since I do like Gil Hodges I was hoping this board would give me some more info for me to support Gil's case. But all I really got was the same old, tired, worn out, and disputed arguments.

Your argument that Gil had the most HRs in a decade...well a number of players can make that claim based upon decade. Leecemark and I have both pointed out that Gil's career fits nice and snug with the 50's decade...but that's not impressive at all.
I think Hodges was replaceable as the Didgers 1B. Not so with jackie, Pee Wee, Duke, or Campy. I suspect the Dodgers would have just as good with Dolph Camilli or State Garvey, a pre and post Dodgers' 1B.

The most HR's by a RH'ed hitter at retirement....barely, if at all.

I realize that Hodges is an icon to old Brooklyn fans. I am glad for that. But outside of old Brooklyn fans....he doesn't cut it.

Lets face it your a Yankee fan so nothing will convince you, most Yankee fans are frontrunners, I know my best friend is a Yankee fan. I was born into this my grandfather, father and uncles suffered through the Dodgers worst years until I was born in 1947. You need to do your homework on the Brooklyn Dodgers and Gil Hodges, you and Leecemark are blowing smoke but giving no real facts why he shouldn't be in the HOF. I've done my homework and the best is yet to come, all the talk here is negative about Gil by you and Leecemark if you guys were truly informed about him you wouldn't being talking like you have. You both have been fed negative opinions, I don't know why, probably because you believe all that Bill James ops+ crap. The park factor is totally misleading, you don't know how far his homeruns went if they were 400 feet or 325 feet, Gils splits for 1949-57 were 21.5 at home to 15.6on the road not that much of a disparity. Duke Sniders splits were 21.3 at home and 15 away, Roy Campanellas splits were 17.5 at home and 12.7 away.
This argument that you all use about him being replaceable is real lame it's just repeated over and over, Gil WAS the 1st baseman of the 1950's Dodgers not Camilli not Garvey not Klu not Adcock, can't you come up with something better. In the mean time try doing some research and maybe then you'll stop making the same excuse of why Gil wasn't good enough.

[leecemark]

--Nobody needs to make up reasons why Hodges shouldn't be in the Hall. He has been unjudged unworthy for almost 40 years now. The challenge is for his supporters to come up with new and better reasons why he should be inducted. Looking forward to reading your best stuff when you get around to posting it.

[kramer_47]

[QUOTE=leecemark]--Nobody needs to make up reasons why Hodges shouldn't be in the Hall. He has been unjudged unworthy for almost 40 years now. The challenge is for his supporters to come up with new and better reasons why he should be inducted. Looking forward to reading your best stuff when you get around to posting it.[/QUOTE

UNWORTHY, 12 of 15 years on the writers ballot in the top 5 with the some of the greatest players of all time, 63% of the writers deemed him WORTHY on his last ballot. Finishing ahead of at least 10 HOF on the writers ballot only to see them voted in by Ted and his cronies, I think Gil got screwed by the left coast writers and the old veterans committee, just look who got voted in over Gil unbelieveable. The best is yet to come, believe me, did you read my last post about the splits. In 1951 Gil hit 40 homers and he hit more on the road and his other splits are similar to Duke and Campy not all that bad.

[kramer_47]

Here is a small sampling of Gil's accomplishments in the 1951 season
1951 league leaders

Runs
Kiner-PIT 124
Musial-STL 124
Hodges-BRO 118
Dark-NYG 114
Robinson-BRO 106

Slugging %
Kiner-PIT .627
Musial-STL .614
Campanella-BRO .590
Thomson-NYG .562
Hodges-BRO .527

Total Bases
Musial-STL 355
Kiner-PIT 333
Hodges-BRO 307
Campanella-BRO 298
Dark-NYG 293
Snider-BRO 293
Home Runs
Kiner-PIT 42
Hodges-BRO 40
Campanella-BRO 33
Musial-STL 32
Thomson-NYG 32
Extra-Base Hits
Kiner-PIT 79
Musial-STL 74
Hodges-BRO 68
Campanella-BRO 67
Thomson-NYG 67
At Bats per Home Run
Kiner-PIT 12.6
Hodges-BRO 14.6
Pafko-TOT 15.2
Campanella-BRO 15.3
Thomson-NYG 16.
Games
Furillo-BRO 158
Hodges-BRO 158
Dark-NYG 156
Torgeson-BSN 155
Ashburn-PHI 154
Kluszewski-CIN 154
Reese-BRO

[leecemark]

--And people were so impressed he came in 16th in the MVP voting - with 4 teammates ahead of him. There were no left coast writers, nor Ted Williams (who seems to be an arch-villan in the Hodges saga for mysterious reasons) voting then. Nobody is saying Hodges wasn't a very good player. Almost any team would have been happy to have him. He just falls a little below the Hall of Fame line.

[kramer_47]

I agree with mark on this one. I doubt the supporters of Hodges like the verdict of the win share system, but the verdict they give clearly supports declining to induct Hodges.

We all know the HOF has made its mistakes, but the number of inductees can provide a nice guideline. That means a guy has to be among the top 140 or so position players from the MLB or at least in the top 20 at his position. Hodges is 33rd in career win shares among the first basemen listed in the latest historical abstract. His career win share total is 266th among all players per the Win Share book. His total win shares for his best three years of 80 ranks 37th among that same list of first basemen. His five year peak of 129 ranks 26th among those first basemen. He doesn't come close to cracking the top 20 first basemen, which IMO is a must.

Don't like win shares? He comes in 336th in MVP award shares. Seems like the writers of his day weren't that impressed. In Black Ink (league leaderships) he's 571st. He is right on the borderline with gray ink at 138th place all time--and that's his only arguable positive in the things I give significant weight to yet. In HOF standards, he's 247th. Additionally, none of the ten most similar players to him as determined by baseball-reference.com are in the Hall. Overall, he's short of the mark, and managing the miracle Mets and his untimely death don't make up for it IMO. He was a darned good player and by all accounts a great guy, but that isn't enough.

Jim Albright
I justed posted the leader boards for 1951, also I quoted his and other Dodgers splits for 1949-57, Gil was right at the top of the Dodgers leaders and league leaders in many categories. This Bill James stats crap doesn't take into account alot of things, as far as win shares go Gil had his share of wins on all those great teams, and he was a big part of it. All his HOF teammates have said as much and that he should be in the HOF. Most of you guys who state Bill James never saw these guys play, you know the game is played on the field and the hardest thing to do is hit a round ball coming in at 90 mph with a round bat.

[kramer_47]

--And people were so impressed he came in 16th in the MVP voting - with 4 teammates ahead of him. There were no left coast writers, nor Ted Williams (who seems to be an arch-villan in the Hodges saga for mysterious reasons) voting then. Nobody is saying Hodges wasn't a very good player. Almost any team would have been happy to have him. He just falls a little below the Hall of Fame line.
No matter what I or the Pope says nothing will be good enough for you guys to see he belongs, I just put up some great stats but you find something wrong like he came in 16th in the MVP voting. 16th isn't too bad at least he was recognized by a few.

[kramer_47]

I did a lot of homework myself dissecting and weighing the numbers as clearly as I could. Sadly, the Brooklyn fans totally ignored all my work when I first posted it. Actually I take that back. Dreifort responded a little early on, and I got one short response from paulmcall saying that all my work was irrelevant because "baseball isn't played by robots." I'll post it again, hopefully with a more fruitful response this time... my first post in the thread was on page 3, so here it is.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=3381&page=3

That was great research and a great read in the previous thread but like I said most if not all Bill James guys have never seen Hodges play. He played on a special team with alot of great players, Bill James don't take into account the variables like team work they just penalize Gil for playing at Ebbets field. I have an appoint soon but I'll say it again we don't know how far those homers went or where the ball was hit but Gil got penalized alot for playing at Ebbets field. Got to go see you later.

[jalbright]

I justed posted the leader boards for 1951, also I quoted his and other Dodgers splits for 1949-57, Gil was right at the top of the Dodgers leaders and league leaders in many categories. This Bill James stats crap doesn't take into account alot of things, as far as win shares go Gil had his share of wins on all those great teams, and he was a big part of it. All his HOF teammates have said as much and that he should be in the HOF. Most of you guys who state Bill James never saw these guys play, you know the game is played on the field and the hardest thing to do is hit a round ball coming in at 90 mph with a round bat.

1951 is one year--should Maris be in because he hit 61 in 1961 and played pretty well otherwise? Hodges was a great guy and a good player on a championship team based in New York, and followed it up with managing a surprise champion, again in New York. Those are the main reasons Hodges has gotten close in the voting--but few have much to do with whether Hodges was one of the 20 best first basemen ever or one of the top 140 or so position players ever. Yes, the game is played on the field, but if you play a tangible part of winning the games you play in, there are enough statistics that we should be able to get a pretty good picture of how good a player is. The fact his teammates loved him is nice, but it isn't terribly relevant here. I have relatives and friends who speak well of me, too. Nobody has lived long enough to see all the greats, and at some point, all of us take a peek at the numbers.

You say Hodges was often among the league leaders. That's what gray ink measures--top ten performances in twelve statistical categories. Guess what? His performance in that measure is his best of the ones I talked about, and even then it is such that Hodges is hanging on to the edges of the Hall with his fingernails. Add in things like how he did in MVP voting (poorly by HOF standards), and that gives a picture of how he was perceived in general in baseball at the time.

If the best you can do is say he had a few good years, you saw him and he was great and his teammates speak well of him, I'm afraid many of us young whippersnappers (even those like me born near the end of the baby boom) will never be persuaded.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

I did a lot of homework myself dissecting and weighing the numbers as clearly as I could. Sadly, the Brooklyn fans totally ignored all my work when I first posted it. Actually I take that back. Dreifort responded a little early on, and I got one short response from paulmcall saying that all my work was irrelevant because "baseball isn't played by robots." I'll post it again, hopefully with a more fruitful response this time... my first post in the thread was on page 3, so here it is.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=3381&page=3

I see if I go much further, I'll only be repeating ipod's fine work, which, as he said, didn't seem to sway the Hodges camp one bit despite the fact it almost completely avoided the Bill James stats. I think I can say for the camp that says Hodges doesn't belong that we want to see tangible proof that Hodges was among the very best not in the Hall at present compared to similar cases like Keith Hernandez, Fred McGriff, Albert Belle, et al. We haven't seen it yet, and until or unless we do, we will refuse to take the "trust me, we saw him and he was great" argument seriously.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

I see if I go much further, I'll only be repeating ipod's fine work, which, as he said, didn't seem to sway the Hodges camp one bit despite the fact it almost completely avoided the Bill James stats. I think I can say for the camp that says Hodges doesn't belong that we want to see tangible proof that Hodges was among the very best not in the Hall at present compared to similar cases like Keith Hernandez, Fred McGriff, Albert Belle, et al. We haven't seen it yet, and until or unless we do, we will refuse to take the "trust me, we saw him and he was great" argument seriously.

Jim Albright

I will state now the voting criteria of the HOF voters.
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
You guys have only stated hitting stats so far, if we look at what the criteria is there are 5 things they are suppose to use to see if a player is eligible for the HOF. Now lets see if Gil,not anyone else, Qualifies on all 5 categories.
Players record, He had very good batting stats, but Gil played both sides of the ball, He also was the best fielding 1st baseman of the 1950's. They didn't have the gold glove until 1957 when he won it for the major leagues, he also won it in 1958 and 1959 for the National league. He was considered by his peers to be the best 1st baseman even before the gold glove came out, Leo Durocher said he was the best 1st baseman he's ever seen, if this award was established in 1949 Gil would have won it 11 times. There are many people in the Hof just for there glove, Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, Phil Rizzuto, and Pee Wee Reese to name a few, Gil could hit and contributed to all those Dodgers teams greatly with his bat. When you look at Gil you aren't looking at just batting stats which were very good, you are looking at a 1st baseman that won games for his team in the field too. Gil was a damn good catcher but gave it up when Campy came along because Campy was the best, he learned to play 1st base real quick and became an all star at that position. If you have watched Keith Hernandez come in on a bunt like a cat and throw the runner out at third well Gil was the righthanded version of Keith. Gil made the 3-6-3 double play as good as anyone, he saved errors for Cox, Reese, Robinson and Gilliam by scooping balls or going off the base to tag runner. Gil was famous for getting off the base as fast as possible to get the calls on outs or double plays and more then not got the call. You know good and smart fielding wins games too, I don't know how many games Gil saved for the Dodgers but I know by all the winning seasons he saved quite a few. We had some great hitting teams but we also had the best fielding teams in the National league, that's why we won 7 pennants and lost 2 others in the last inning. Gil had it on both sides of the ball, he was a complete player, and you win when you play both sides of the ball. Now that we covered player's record, playing ability lets move on to integrity, sportsmanship, character, Gil had all 3 that you can't dispute. Contributions to the team, Gil was a big part of the Dodgers winning tradition for many years, leading the team in many categories. There is alot more to a HOF player then OPS+ or some other batting stat lets look at Gil as the complete player that could win games on both sides of the ball.

[kramer_47]

I challenge any Brooklynite or Hodges supporter to show me OBJECTIVE evidence as to why Gil Hodges was better than Dick Allen.

How was Gil Hodges more dominant in his time than Allen was in his? Hodges never finsihed top 5 in MVP voting, most years he finsihed 4th or 5th in the vote on his own team. Allen won an MVP award and finished 4th in 1966. He is 122nd all time in MVP shares, Hodges is 336th.

Hodges never led his league in a major offensive category, Allen led in OBP twice, SLG three times, OPS 4 times, runs scored once, total bases once, triples once, home runs twice, RBI once, runs created 3 times, runs created four times, extra base hits three times, times on base once, and power speed number once.

Allen had a 156 OPS+, Hodges had a 120 OPS+. Allen's career OPS+ is better than Hodges' career high.

For those of you who like eyewitness opinions, this is what Chuck Tanner had to say about Allen:

"He was the greatest player I ever managed, and what he did for us in Chicago was amazing. In Pittsburgh I had guys like Willie Stargell, Dave Parker, Phil Garner, Bill Madlock, but in Chicago it was Dick Allen and, what, Bill Melton? There just wasn't a lot of talent there. With Dick -- well, we were able to battle the Oakland A's, one of the greatest teams ever. Without him we simply weren't a first division team."-Chuck Tanner

Tanner was Allen's manager with the White Sox. Did anyone ever say anything like that about Hodges? Did anyone ever call Hodges "the best player I ever managed"? Did anyone ever say Hodges single handedly made the Dodges a contender? Look, the Dodgers won before they had Hodges, they won with Hodges, and they won after he left. As I said earlier, most years the MVP voters considered him the 4th or 5th best player on their team.

Please explain how you can totally reject the evidence and say Hodges was a better player than Allen.

This post is about Gil Hodges not Dick Allen, I feel Allen deserves to be considered more seriously for the HOF he was a great player, we aren't pegging one player against another here they are all individuals trying to make it on there own record. But Dick Allen is another superstar that didn't win but one pennant, what good were all his stats if the White Sox never won a pennant with him. Branch Rickey once told Ralph Kiner after he led the league in homers I'm cutting your salary, Kiner said why Rickey said we could have finished last without you.

[tonypug]

I challenge any Brooklynite or Hodges supporter to show me OBJECTIVE evidence as to why Gil Hodges was better than Dick Allen.

How was Gil Hodges more dominant in his time than Allen was in his? Hodges never finsihed top 5 in MVP voting, most years he finsihed 4th or 5th in the vote on his own team. Allen won an MVP award and finished 4th in 1966. He is 122nd all time in MVP shares, Hodges is 336th.

Hodges never led his league in a major offensive category, Allen led in OBP twice, SLG three times, OPS 4 times, runs scored once, total bases once, triples once, home runs twice, RBI once, runs created 3 times, runs created four times, extra base hits three times, times on base once, and power speed number once.

Allen had a 156 OPS+, Hodges had a 120 OPS+. Allen's career OPS+ is better than Hodges' career high.

For those of you who like eyewitness opinions, this is what Chuck Tanner had to say about Allen:

"He was the greatest player I ever managed, and what he did for us in Chicago was amazing. In Pittsburgh I had guys like Willie Stargell, Dave Parker, Phil Garner, Bill Madlock, but in Chicago it was Dick Allen and, what, Bill Melton? There just wasn't a lot of talent there. With Dick -- well, we were able to battle the Oakland A's, one of the greatest teams ever. Without him we simply weren't a first division team."-Chuck Tanner

Tanner was Allen's manager with the White Sox. Did anyone ever say anything like that about Hodges? Did anyone ever call Hodges "the best player I ever managed"? Did anyone ever say Hodges single handedly made the Dodges a contender? Look, the Dodgers won before they had Hodges, they won with Hodges, and they won after he left. As I said earlier, most years the MVP voters considered him the 4th or 5th best player on their team.

Please explain how you can totally reject the evidence and say Hodges was a better player than Allen.
Dick Allen isn't in beacause he was Dick Allen and that is being held against him. I haven't seen any arguement saying Hodges is more deserving. Dick Allen hasn't made it because of things other then baseball talent.

What was Hodges ranking when he was first eligible for the Hall of Fame. The entire game of baseball has changed. There are many hall of famers who would fail the test if they were being judged today.

[kramer_47]

I agree fielding percentage should not be used as evidence against Hodges' defensive dominance over the other NL 1B during his time. I also think bringing his fielding into question is like, to adopt a Bill James example, arguing that Greg Minton wasn't a Hall of Famer because, if you think about it, his pickoff move wasn't that great after all. I think there's enough evidence to reject Hodges' candidacy even completely forfeiting the defensive reputation to his supporters.

The "Gil could hit and field, Ozzie could only field" argument doesn't apply, because if Hodges was slugging .328 like Ozzie was, that wouldn't make him as good as Ozzie; it would make him a career minor leaguer.

Why doesn't it apply because you guys think so lowly of 1st baseman, Gil brought his bat and glove Ozzie only his glove, Gil was a complete player. If he is on the fence like most of you guys suggest then being the best 1st baseman of that era should put the icing on the cake to get him in.

[donzblock]

Why doesn't it apply because you guys think so lowly of 1st baseman, Gil brought his bat and glove Ozzie only his glove, Gil was a complete player. If he is on the fence like most of you guys suggest then being the best 1st baseman of that era should put the icing on the cake to get him in.
Forgive me, but I don't quite understand your first sentence. Why doesn't what apply?

[leecemark]

--I think what he is saying is that Hodges should get as much credit for his defense at 1B as Ozzie Smith for his at SS. This is, of course, absurd. Kramer, my apologies if that is not what you meant.

[kramer_47]

--I think what he is saying is that Hodges should get as much credit for his defense at 1B as Ozzie Smith for his at SS. This is, of course, absurd. Kramer, my apologies if that is not what you meant.

leecemark
I'm not comparing Gil to Ozzie in anyway, shape or form. What I was saying is Gil being the primiere 1st base of his era should get credit for being a complete ballplayer. He played both sides of the ball, winning games for his team at bat and in the field. There are people in the HOF for there glove, others for just there bat but there are players like Gil who played pretty good on both ends.

[kramer_47]

--If the only people who can understand Uncle Gil are Brookyn fans, then I guess he should just be in the Brooklyn Dodgers HoF. We don't need to clutter up Cooperstown with every teams cult favorites. If we do, the Mariners present for your inspection Mr Jay Buhner. Feel free to call him Bone.
--Perez is a good comp for Hodges. He is also a marginal inductee, who many here would not have voted for. That said, Perez does have a significant longevity advantage over Hodges. Thier quality is similar, but Tony has the quanitity.

For Gil to get all the support he had on the writers ballot and now on the Veterans ballot there are more then Brooklyn Dodgers fans supporting him. I meant the detractors coming in here are from out of town. Tony hung around til he was 44, he does have longevity but if you break it down Gil beats him in every category but batting average. We are also talking about different eras but they are as close as you can find.

[kramer_47]

Perez had three seasons of OPS+ better than Hodges' best of 143. He also had a higher career OPS+ in 2757 more plate appearances. Perez' final 2592 plate appearances had seasonal OPS+ of: 104-109-98-105-91-76-137 (in 207 PA) and 87. There's no doubt that if we deduct those scores from Perez to give him a career of almost exactly the same length, his OPS+ is even more than the 2 point edge (122-120) in their career marks. Hodges loses the comparison all the way around in my book.

Jim Albright

jalbright i know you are a very good stat guy, just for a second lets get away from OPS+ and use some simple math ok. Since Perez had more quantity i averaged out a few different categories for Tony and Gil, Gil beat him in everyone except batting avg here they are:
Tony Perez
AB/HR = 25.8 AB/K = 5.2 AB/RBI = 5.91 AB/BB = 10.6 AB/RUNS = 7.68 obp=.341 slgp= .463 ops= .804
Gil Hodges
AB/HR = 19 AB/K = 6.2 AB/RBI = 5.51 AB/BB = 7.45 AB/RUNS = 6.36 obp= .359 slgp= .487 ops= .846
These 2 are a very good comparison Gil appeared in 7 World Series Tony 5
They were both 1st baseman for the bulk of their career
Gil played for the " Big Royal Blue Machine"
Tony for the "Big Red Machine"
Gil was the better fielder
Very similar teams with alot of fire power
Gil was penilized for playing at Ebbets Field but his averaged split for 1949-57 is 17.2 homers at Ebbets and 12.5 on the road. These aren't bad splits not as drastic as some may have believed. Duke Snider's splits are 17.1 at Ebbets and 12.0 on road, Campy's splits are 14 at Ebbets and 10.2 on the road.
Like I said earlier Gil should be judged as a complete player, playing good on both sides of the ball.

[kramer_47]

Here's the thing: what makes Gil Hodges better than all or at least all but one of the following: Jack Clark, Norm Cash, Boog Powell, Keith Hernandez, Dick Allen, Mickey Vernon, Steve Garvey, Don Mattingly, Will Clark, Fred McGriff and Andres Galarraga? Almost all of these guys did better than Hodges in MVP voting and Black Ink, had around as many PA or more, were close or better in OPS+. Why him over all of them? When I look at that group, I see Hodges in the pack, not out in front, which is where he needs to be to make the HOF.

Jim Albright

There are only 2 players in that group that should go to the HOF Allen and Mcgriff. There is only one player from Gil's era Vernon and he doesn't compare. My last post tried to show you that Gil is getting greatly penilized for playing at Ebbets Field, when players such as you mentioned are getting compared to Gil it makes OPS+ look like a travesty.

[iPod]

Here's the thing: what makes Gil Hodges better than all or at least all but one of the following: Jack Clark, Norm Cash, Boog Powell, Keith Hernandez, Dick Allen, Mickey Vernon, Steve Garvey, Don Mattingly, Will Clark, Fred McGriff and Andres Galarraga? Almost all of these guys did better than Hodges in MVP voting and Black Ink, had around as many PA or more, were close or better in OPS+. Why him over all of them? When I look at that group, I see Hodges in the pack, not out in front, which is where he needs to be to make the HOF.

Jim Albright

Exactly what I was going to ask. Don't compare him to the bottom feeders in the Hall; the best way to prove a player's worthiness is by showing that he's better than all the other players that are sitting alongside him outside the Hall. Explain why the Hall should pluck him out of the sea of great non-HoF first basemen.

[538280]

This post is about Gil Hodges not Dick Allen, I feel Allen deserves to be considered more seriously for the HOF he was a great player, we aren't pegging one player against another here they are all individuals trying to make it on there own record. But Dick Allen is another superstar that didn't win but one pennant, what good were all his stats if the White Sox never won a pennant with him. Branch Rickey once told Ralph Kiner after he led the league in homers I'm cutting your salary, Kiner said why Rickey said we could have finished last without you.

This is ridiculous, Kramer. Dick Allen and Gil Hodges should be compared side by side when looking at who should be inducted to the HOF, because they're both great first basemen who are currently on the outside looking in. If you want to make the case for Hodges, Allen is one of the obstacles you must overcome. Because if you want Gil to get in now, then you have to prove that he's better than all other 1B currently not in, including Allen.

As far as the "Allen never won anything" argument, it's just plain stupidity. I'm not saying if a player won a pennant it means nothing, but to hold it against Allen that he never won a pennant is unfair. The reason why Allen never won anything wasn't because of Allen, it was actually despite him.

I think it is quite clear, though, the reason the Dodgers won wasn't because of Hodges. As I said earlier, Hodges was considered in his time by MVP voters as the 4th or 5th best player on his team. If a truly great team lost their 5th best player, they might be a hair worse but they're still probably winning the pennant. Also, the Dodgers won before they had Hodges, they won while they had him, and they won after he was gone. If Hodges really was the reason why the Dodgers won, would that have happened? IMO, the argument Hodges is better because his teams were more sucessful doesn't hold any water.

I still am waiting for a good, coherent argument as to why Gil Hodges is better than Dick Allen, because as I said Allen is an obstacle you Hodges supporters must overcome if you want your man in the Hall.

[kramer_47]

This is ridiculous, Kramer. Dick Allen and Gil Hodges should be compared side by side when looking at who should be inducted to the HOF, because they're both great first basemen who are currently on the outside looking in. If you want to make the case for Hodges, Allen is one of the obstacles you must overcome. Because if you want Gil to get in now, then you have to prove that he's better than all other 1B currently not in, including Allen.

As far as the "Allen never won anything" argument, it's just plain stupidity. I'm not saying if a player won a pennant it means nothing, but to hold it against Allen that he never won a pennant is unfair. The reason why Allen never won anything wasn't because of Allen, it was actually despite him.

I think it is quite clear, though, the reason the Dodgers won wasn't because of Hodges. As I said earlier, Hodges was considered in his time by MVP voters as the 4th or 5th best player on his team. If a truly great team lost their 5th best player, they might be a hair worse but they're still probably winning the pennant. Also, the Dodgers won before they had Hodges, they won while they had him, and they won after he was gone. If Hodges really was the reason why the Dodgers won, would that have happened? IMO, the argument Hodges is better because his teams were more sucessful doesn't hold any water.

I still am waiting for a good, coherent argument as to why Gil Hodges is better than Dick Allen, because as I said Allen is an obstacle you Hodges supporters must overcome if you want your man in the Hall.

The voters obviously don't agree with you he never got more then 18.94% of the vote with the writers ballot and 15% or 12 votes with the veterans last time. Hodges finished most seasons from 1949-57 in the top 1,2,3 in stats on all those Dodgers team, I'm not going to knock anyone on the team but if you look at the cold hard stats and not OPS+ or MVP vote Gil was one of there main men. They never won as much as 1947-59 and Gil was on all those teams, Jackie, Duke, Pee Wee, and Campy can't say that and that is what you were infering, you just need to do a little more research on the Brooklyn Dodgers. All great players retire and if the team is good enough they will win again. Lets stop with this 5th best player crap if you checked you would see they were a great team that needed every spoke to click.
It's really ashame that you never saw the Dodgers play and depend on Bill James for your misguided information.

[kramer_47]

--Kramer, has anybody but you even mentioned Bill James? What makes you think everybody (or even anybody) who doesn't think Gil Hodges has a compelling case for the Hall is parroting James?

Because some of the statements made here are without thinking, almost like everybody just checks the OPS+ and says he don't deserve it or he's the 4th or 5th best player on the team and they could have done without him because he was just a 1st baseman. It's true alot of people on this site use him or similar stats especially the crew from the HOF forum so if the shoe fits wear it. Meanwhile do what i did do some serious research and see what Gil did for the Dodgers who he played for and stop trying get him off the team or replace him with Frank Torre or anyone else from the 50's that fits the bill.

[yanks0714]

Lets face it your a Yankee fan so nothing will convince you, most Yankee fans are frontrunners, I know my best friend is a Yankee fan. I was born into this my grandfather, father and uncles suffered through the Dodgers worst years until I was born in 1947. You need to do your homework on the Brooklyn Dodgers and Gil Hodges, you and Leecemark are blowing smoke but giving no real facts why he shouldn't be in the HOF. I've done my homework and the best is yet to come, all the talk here is negative about Gil by you and Leecemark if you guys were truly informed about him you wouldn't being talking like you have. You both have been fed negative opinions, I don't know why, probably because you believe all that Bill James ops+ crap. The park factor is totally misleading, you don't know how far his homeruns went if they were 400 feet or 325 feet, Gils splits for 1949-57 were 21.5 at home to 15.6on the road not that much of a disparity. Duke Sniders splits were 21.3 at home and 15 away, Roy Campanellas splits were 17.5 at home and 12.7 away.
This argument that you all use about him being replaceable is real lame it's just repeated over and over, Gil WAS the 1st baseman of the 1950's Dodgers not Camilli not Garvey not Klu not Adcock, can't you come up with something better. In the mean time try doing some research and maybe then you'll stop making the same excuse of why Gil wasn't good enough.

I did not mean to get you upset at all. I've stated several times that I liked Gil Hodges and admired him. He was a fine ball player and an even finer gentleman.
I do enjoy reading Bill James. But I can honestly say I am not a blind follower of his. I disagree with some of his stuff, agree with others.
I make up my own mind.
As for being a front-runner Yankee fan, nope, I cheered for them as hard in 1966 (last place) as I did before that year and as I do today. As it says on my tagline...been a Yankee fan since 1957.
I can be as objective about baseball as anyone. A number of 'fans' want Roger Maris and/or Don Mattingly in the HOF. My response: Absolutely not!!!
I also feel that an number of old Yankees in the HOF do NOT belong there such as Pennock and Hoyt.
As well, even today, I think that Derek Jeter is a good but not great player and is vastly over-hyped by the NY media.
Does all that sound objective enough for you?
As for Gil Hodges, he has been bypassed for 40 years. There must be a reason. Is it possible that the voters just did not feel he was qualified?
As for doing more research, I find the 1950's Brooklyn Dodgers one of the most facinating teams ever (one of my most admired men ever is Jackie Robinson)...as well as one of the best teams ever. I readily acknowledge Gil Hodges contributions to the success of that team. I just don't feel they are HOF worthy.
If you feel I need to do some research on those Dodgers, all I can say is that I can turn my head and see a number of books in my library that relate directly to or indirectly to those great Dodger teams.
I challenge you to ask me some questions via IM about those Dodgers teams. Who knows I might know all the answers to your questions or I might not and will learn something new about them.

[kramer_47]

Here is the cover of the Sporting News in August 1960 when Gil Hodges was being considered for player of the decade in the 1950's. Just look at all the HOFERS that are on that cover with Gil for consideration for the award.

[538280]

The voters obviously don't agree with you he never got more then 18.94% of the vote with the writers ballot and 15% or 12 votes with the veterans last time. Hodges finished most seasons from 1949-57 in the top 1,2,3 in stats on all those Dodgers team, I'm not going to knock anyone on the team but if you look at the cold hard stats and not OPS+ or MVP vote Gil was one of there main men. They never won as much as 1947-59 and Gil was on all those teams, Jackie, Duke, Pee Wee, and Campy can't say that and that is what you were infering, you just need to do a little more research on the Brooklyn Dodgers. All great players retire and if the team is good enough they will win again. Lets stop with this 5th best player crap if you checked you would see they were a great team that needed every spoke to click.
It's really ashame that you never saw the Dodgers play and depend on Bill James for your misguided information.

Kramer, go back and read my original post. I'll reproduce it for you here to save you time:


challenge any Brooklynite or Hodges supporter to show me OBJECTIVE evidence as to why Gil Hodges was better than Dick Allen.

How was Gil Hodges more dominant in his time than Allen was in his? Hodges never finsihed top 5 in MVP voting, most years he finsihed 4th or 5th in the vote on his own team. Allen won an MVP award and finished 4th in 1966. He is 122nd all time in MVP shares, Hodges is 336th.

Hodges never led his league in a major offensive category, Allen led in OBP twice, SLG three times, OPS 4 times, runs scored once, total bases once, triples once, home runs twice, RBI once, runs created 3 times, runs created four times, extra base hits three times, times on base once, and power speed number once.

Allen had a 156 OPS+, Hodges had a 120 OPS+. Allen's career OPS+ is better than Hodges' career high.

For those of you who like eyewitness opinions, this is what Chuck Tanner had to say about Allen:

"He was the greatest player I ever managed, and what he did for us in Chicago was amazing. In Pittsburgh I had guys like Willie Stargell, Dave Parker, Phil Garner, Bill Madlock, but in Chicago it was Dick Allen and, what, Bill Melton? There just wasn't a lot of talent there. With Dick -- well, we were able to battle the Oakland A's, one of the greatest teams ever. Without him we simply weren't a first division team."-Chuck Tanner

Tanner was Allen's manager with the White Sox. Did anyone ever say anything like that about Hodges? Did anyone ever call Hodges "the best player I ever managed"? Did anyone ever say Hodges single handedly made the Dodges a contender? Look, the Dodgers won before they had Hodges, they won with Hodges, and they won after he left. As I said earlier, most years the MVP voters considered him the 4th or 5th best player on their team.

Please explain how you can totally reject the evidence and say Hodges was a better player than Allen.

Now, read that over and please tell me when I referenced Bill James. That post's main criteria was peer opinion. It uses nothing James created, it uses no heavy sabermetrics. The one short thing I said about OPS+ was just a complement, not the whole argument. Try reading what I have to say instead of making blanket statements like "I rely on Bill James". I haven't mentioned his name once here. Even if you don't like OPS+ you have to admit there has to be something going on when one guy's career figure is better than another's career high. Please respond to my post.

The HOF voters did like Hodges more, but you know why? Hodges was beloved in his time, one of the most popular players in the game at the time. Allen wasn't hated, but he did always have an unfair rep for being a clubhouse lawyer. This was throughly disproven in an article written by Craig Wright that interviewed Allen's former teammates. The HOF is for the best baseball players ever, not the nicest baseball players ever. Gil Hodges didn't get votes because of his talent, but becuase of his personaility. There is even proof that this is indeed the case since the same people usually considered Hodges the 4th or 5th best player on his team in the MVP vote.

[jalbright]

There are only 2 players in that group that should go to the HOF Allen and Mcgriff. There is only one player from Gil's era Vernon and he doesn't compare. My last post tried to show you that Gil is getting greatly penilized for playing at Ebbets Field, when players such as you mentioned are getting compared to Gil it makes OPS+ look like a travesty.

You're not answering the question. If you think Hodges is in a class with Dick Allen, you're deluded. Hodges 273 avg/359 on base/487 slugging 1105 Runs and 1274 RBI in 8104 Plate appearances. Dick Allen--with a lot of his career in the stingier sixties, is 292/378/534 with 1099 runs and 1119 RBI in 790 less plate appearances. In many ways, McGriff is even easier--284/377/509, 1349 runs and 1550 RBI in 10174 plate appearances. So, without any fancy math at all, Hodges is no better than third on the list I gave you--and, as I said earlier, that ain't good enough.

Jim Albright

[yanks0714]

I did a lot of homework myself dissecting and weighing the numbers as clearly as I could. Sadly, the Brooklyn fans totally ignored all my work when I first posted it. Actually I take that back. Dreifort responded a little early on, and I got one short response from paulmcall saying that all my work was irrelevant because "baseball isn't played by robots." I'll post it again, hopefully with a more fruitful response this time... my first post in the thread was on page 3, so here it is.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=3381&page=3

Excellent job and great research and a great argument against Hodges for the HOF.

There is no way the pro-Hodges for HOF supporters can respond to that adequately. An impartial observer in a courtroom would clearly award you the case.

That said, it is sad to me because Gil Hodges was wonderful man and a good ball player. The old Brooklyn faithful should stop the stumping for Gil that brings out such arguments against him. :lookitup

[kramer_47]

You're not answering the question. If you think Hodges is in a class with Dick Allen, you're deluded. Hodges 273 avg/359 on base/487 slugging 1105 Runs and 1274 RBI in 8104 Plate appearances. Dick Allen--with a lot of his career in the stingier sixties, is 292/378/534 with 1099 runs and 1119 RBI in 790 less plate appearances. In many ways, McGriff is even easier--284/377/509, 1349 runs and 1550 RBI in 10174 plate appearances. So, without any fancy math at all, Hodges is no better than third on the list I gave you--and, as I said earlier, that ain't good enough.

Jim Albright

Read what I said DICK ALLEN should be in the HOF, now lets get back to Gil Hodges in this forum. You guys have a way to get off the subject with jerks like Dick Allen who played 13 years with a chip on his shoulder and that is why he never got more that 18% of the vote and probably never will get in the HOF even though he had tremendous talent.

[yanks0714]

Here we go again that Gil could have been interchanged with just about anyone who happened to have a 1st basemans glove and 35 ounce bat. Gil was really a big part of those great Dodgers teams, he was one of the reasons they won or almost won just about every year, to minimize Gil like that and glorify others on the team would get an argument from all his teammates. No one is indespensable but Gil was part of that team and they all worked together at bat and in the field to bring us Dodgers fans much joy for many years, a joy not seen by any other fans except the Yankee fans, no other team but the Yankees ever won like the Dodgers did. While I'm at it why didn't you use the Reds 1st baseman Tony Perez, who is already in, as a comparison maybe because Gil and Tony compare so well.

Let me ask you this: If you had to remove 1 of the following Dodgers from the line-up, which would you remove? Robinson, Reese, Campy, Snider, or Hodges?

[kramer_47]

Let me ask you this: If you had to remove 1 of the following Dodgers from the line-up, which would you remove? Robinson, Reese, Campy, Snider, or Hodges?

Why remove any of them they were all there,the team was great if its not broke don't fix it, in later years like 1954-55 the manager removed Robinson because he was getting older and slipping.

[kramer_47]

Kramer, go back and read my original post. I'll reproduce it for you here to save you time:



Now, read that over and please tell me when I referenced Bill James. That post's main criteria was peer opinion. It uses nothing James created, it uses no heavy sabermetrics. The one short thing I said about OPS+ was just a complement, not the whole argument. Try reading what I have to say instead of making blanket statements like "I rely on Bill James". I haven't mentioned his name once here. Even if you don't like OPS+ you have to admit there has to be something going on when one guy's career figure is better than another's career high. Please respond to my post.

The HOF voters did like Hodges more, but you know why? Hodges was beloved in his time, one of the most popular players in the game at the time. Allen wasn't hated, but he did always have an unfair rep for being a clubhouse lawyer. This was throughly disproven in an article written by Craig Wright that interviewed Allen's former teammates. The HOF is for the best baseball players ever, not the nicest baseball players ever. Gil Hodges didn't get votes because of his talent, but becuase of his personaility. There is even proof that this is indeed the case since the same people usually considered Hodges the 4th or 5th best player on his team in the MVP vote.
Now go back and read what I said, I said obviously the voters don't agree with you because Dick never got more that 18% of the vote. I never compared Gil to Allen, whenever you mention OPS+ you are mentioning Bill James. Why don't we look at Gil Hodges without comparing him to other players of different eras. If you looked at Gil the player on the field the complete player maybe you'd have a different opinion but since you never seen him play you only have stats to look at and you only look at offensive stats. While your at it why don't you check out Gil's fielding maybe he was more then just a useless 1st baseman. Again I'll mention the rules the voters are suppose to go by for election to the HOF.
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

[jalbright]

Read what I said DICK ALLEN should be in the HOF, now lets get back to Gil Hodges in this forum. You guys have a way to get off the subject with jerks like Dick Allen who played 13 years with a chip on his shoulder and that is why he never got more that 18% of the vote and probably never will get in the HOF even though he had tremendous talent.

I only posted what I did to make the point that Hodges is certainly no better than the third best retired first baseman not in the Hall--and third place in this race isn't show--it's out of the money. Also, please take note of how many in my list outdid Hodges in MVP voting (all or almost all).

Dick Allen at times certainly has behaved like a jerk. Gil Hodges was a model citizen. I'm not going to argue that isn't a plus for Hodges. Similarly, with the glove, I don't have a problem with giving Hodges the advantage. Hodges was even a little more durable. However, those three advantages are overwhelmed by Allen's superiority at the plate.

Look, you're the one trying to push the case for Hodges. It's your responsibility to introduce the proof to support that case. Those of us who don't believe as you do have gone above and beyond our responsibility in a debate of this sort by showing you the type of proof we seek through examples intended to show why we believe you are wrong here. You're simply not reciprocating with proof supporting your position. You're saying you saw this and Hodges was a wonderful guy and so forth--but it has little to do with proving why Hodges belongs in the Hall. If we inducted all the nice guys who were pretty good hitters for their time and position, we'd have at least another 100 guys and probably way more than that.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

I only posted what I did to make the point that Hodges is certainly no better than the third best retired first baseman not in the Hall--and third place in this race isn't show--it's out of the money. Also, please take note of how many in my list outdid Hodges in MVP voting (all or almost all).

Dick Allen at times certainly has behaved like a jerk. Gil Hodges was a model citizen. I'm not going to argue that isn't a plus for Hodges. Similarly, with the glove, I don't have a problem with giving Hodges the advantage. Hodges was even a little more durable. However, those three advantages are overwhelmed by Allen's superiority at the plate.

Look, you're the one trying to push the case for Hodges. It's your responsibility to introduce the proof to support that case. Those of us who don't believe as you do have gone above and beyond our responsibility in a debate of this sort by showing you the type of proof we seek through examples intended to show why we believe you are wrong here. You're simply not reciprocating with proof supporting your position. You're saying you saw this and Hodges was a wonderful guy and so forth--but it has little to do with proving why Hodges belongs in the Hall. If we inducted all the nice guys who were pretty good hitters for their time and position, we'd have at least another 100 guys and probably way more than that.

Jim Albright

Say you owned a business would you want to hire an employe who was in the top 1-15% of the people every year in that field to be one of your employees.

[kramer_47]

Take a look at this, these are taken from actual Brooklyn Dodgers stats, then tell me if Gil contributed to the Dodgers great teams or not. Everybody is saying he was worthless could be interchanged with just about anyone maybe the 4th or 5th best player.

[kramer_47]

Here's a better copy easier to read. These are Gil's Stats where he rated with Dodgers not league stats.

[kramer_47]

The picture is a nice bonus in Hodges' favor, but who are responsible for Hodges being in that illustration? Baseball writers. Who are directly responsible for Hodges not being in the Hall of Fame right now? Baseball writers.

As for the scorecard, there are two things working against that. First, Hodges routinely finished behind several teammates in the MVP voting totally in spite of those totals.
Year NL MVP rank Dodger Rank
1949 11th 5th
1950 8th 1st
1951 16th 5th
1952 19th 6th
1953 14th 7th
1954 10th 3rd
1955 DNP 7th (at best)
1956 DNP 9th (at best)
1957 7th 1st

Second, just like citing baseball writers, citing traditional numbers has only limited usefulness, because his traditional numbers don't pierce the Hall of Fame threshold, and citing numbers like runs created (invented by Bill James by the way) isn't really very useful because all the advanced metrics use runs created and all the advanced metrics refuse to see Hodges as a Hall of Famer.
As you can see by the chart he routinely finished ahead in stats of alot of the people that finished ahead of him in the Mvp race, but then again the writers were voting. Gil never got a fair shake from some of the writers I guess nice guys do finish last. He was right there either 1 2 or 3 in the important stats on the Dodgers, i guess the writers ignored that.These Dodgers teams were great only one team better so they deserved all the attention. Like I said many times Gil also played the field better then any other 1st baseman in his era, he was an All Star 8 times and won the first 3 gold glove. Lets open your eyes to his defense too, even though he had good batting stats stats aren't the complete player. The only reason I used runs created is because it was used as a category on the baseball reference site. Gil is all over the leader board every year for the national league he was alot more then the OPS+ stat says.
But no matter what I say or produce as evidence the people that never enjoyed seeing him play will be nay sayers because they read more into stats then into the actual play on the field. In the end it doesn't matter what any of us thinks, it is up to the Veterans and Gil missed by only 8 votes last time, maybe next time he'll get the extra votes he needs.

[iPod]

As you can see by the chart he routinely finished ahead in stats of alot of the people that finished ahead of him in the Mvp race, but then again the writers were voting.


He also finished ahead of a lot of guys with better numbers. For example, in 1950, Duke Snider finished one place behind Hodges, despite the fact that Snider hit .321 to Hodges' .283, Snider had 40 more hits (199-159), had more stolen bases (16-6) and their HR totals were basically the same (32 for Hodges, 31 for Snider). In 1957, Eddie Mathews finished below Hodges, even though Mathews played third, had more homers (32-27), had similar batting averages (.299 for Hodges, .292 for Mathews), but Mathews had to hit in County Stadium instead of Ebbets Field. Whatever the case, Hodges did poorly in MVP voting.



Gil never got a fair shake from some of the writers I guess nice guys do finish last. He was right there either 1 2 or 3 in the important stats on the Dodgers, i guess the writers ignored that.These Dodgers teams were great only one team better so they deserved all the attention. Like I said many times Gil also played the field better then any other 1st baseman in his era, he was an All Star 8 times and won the first 3 gold glove. Lets open your eyes to his defense too, even though he had good batting stats stats aren't the complete player.


The writers hated Hodges? Really? I think its entirely reasonable to simply think that, if Hodges puts up bigger numbers than Pee Wee Reese and Reese still finishes 1 slot above him (which happened in 1954), the writers perceived Reese's contributions (baserunning, fielding, being the captain) as being more valuable than Hodges' power. Looking at MVP finishes is an attempt on my part to do exactly what you're saying I'm not doing; try to understand Hodges' full capacities as a ballplayer.

[kramer_47]

--Why is Gil Hodges more worthy than Steve Garvey of the "other Dodgers"? Garvey was also a fine fielding, fine hitting 1B who played for great teams (5 pennant winners). Garvey made more All Star teams, won more Gold Gloves (granted they weren't given out early in Hodges career) and fared better in the MVP voting. Garvey actually won one and had 5 finishes higher than Hodges high of 7th. I don't endorse Garvey, but he was pretty clearly more highly regarded by the men who saw him play than Hodges by those who saw him (present company excepted).

The Brooklyn Dodgers stopped existing in Brooklyn Sept 1957, as far as i'm concerned the Dodgers died in 1957, LA is just another team. The greatest 1st baseman in Brooklyn Dodgers history was Gil Hodges and till this day no matter what they call themselves, he still is. The other guy you mentioned from those west coast teams he just never got the support, he's just like every other player you guys bring up as more worthy, on the outside looking in without much of a shot to get in.

[leecemark]

--I actually don't think Garvey is more worthy. I just pointed out that by the criteria you were using Garvey comes out ahead of Hodges.

[kramer_47]

He also finished ahead of a lot of guys with better numbers. For example, in 1950, Duke Snider finished one place behind Hodges, despite the fact that Snider hit .321 to Hodges' .283, Snider had 40 more hits (199-159), had more stolen bases (16-6) and their HR totals were basically the same (32 for Hodges, 31 for Snider). In 1957, Eddie Mathews finished below Hodges, even though Mathews played third, had more homers (32-27), had similar batting averages (.299 for Hodges, .292 for Mathews), but Mathews had to hit in County Stadium instead of Ebbets Field. Whatever the case, Hodges did poorly in MVP voting.



The writers hated Hodges? Really? I think its entirely reasonable to simply think that, if Hodges puts up bigger numbers than Pee Wee Reese and Reese still finishes 1 slot above him (which happened in 1954), the writers perceived Reese's contributions (baserunning, fielding, being the captain) as being more valuable than Hodges' power. Looking at MVP finishes is an attempt on my part to do exactly what you're saying I'm not doing; try to understand Hodges' full capacities as a ballplayer.

You'll never understand his full capacity as a player, you're looking at hard stats, playing baseball on the field there are alot of tangibles. Like you said Pee Wee was the captain, Gil was the enforcer, no one messed with Pee Wee or the other Dodgers. Pee Wee and Gil both helped Jackie when other players didn't like the idea of Jackie playing for the Dodgers. These were great teams on the field, the best defensive infield in the league, and year in year out they were in the World Series. Going to Ebbets field was an event, no place like it, where else could you see a great game and hear Hilda Chester's bell and the Dodgers Sym-phony. It is something you can't just read about you had to experience it, you think about the history of baseball 1950's was truly the golden era of baseball, you just can't grunch the numbers you needed to be sitting there between 1st and rightfield drinking that Rheingold and eating that hot dog. The record books can show you some things about a player but it won't show you the complete player, you needed to see the game played on the field.

[runningshoes]

You'll never understand his full capacity as a player, you're looking at hard stats, playing baseball on the field there are alot of tangibles. Like you said Pee Wee was the captain, Gil was the enforcer, no one messed with Pee Wee or the other Dodgers. Pee Wee and Gil both helped Jackie when other players didn't like the idea of Jackie playing for the Dodgers. These were great teams on the field, the best defensive infield in the league, and year in year out they were in the World Series. Going to Ebbets field was an event, no place like it, where else could you see a great game and hear Hilda Chester's bell and the Dodgers Sym-phony. It is something you can't just read about you had to experience it, you think about the history of baseball 1950's was truly the golden era of baseball, you just can't grunch the numbers you needed to be sitting there between 1st and rightfield drinking that Rheingold and eating that hot dog. The record books can show you some things about a player but it won't show you the complete player, you needed to see the game played on the field.

What in the world do Hilda, the Sym-phony and beer and hot dogs have to do with how well Hodges played baseball?

The stats show us what he did..you saw how he did it but that doesn't change what he actually did.

You're romanticizing his accomplishments, which, in the whole scheme of things, don't cut the same mustard you used on your hot dogs at Ebbet's Field

[538280]

Now go back and read what I said, I said obviously the voters don't agree with you because Dick never got more that 18% of the vote. I never compared Gil to Allen, whenever you mention OPS+ you are mentioning Bill James.

Now, first of all OPS+ has NOTHING to do with Bill James. James didn't create OPS and he really has nothing to do with it. No one has anything Bill James ever wrote or any stat he created in this thread. The only reason we're talking about him is because you continue to bring him up, claiming the ant Hodges group is "relying on him".

Anyway, the writers didn't give Allen much support, but that has little to do with his actual playing skill but rather because he wasn't very popular with reporters. That has nothing to do with is intangibles or anything like that, it's just that he didn't handle the media well. Writers aren't going to vote for a guy who never wanted to give them any of his time. Hodges was the exact opposite in that regard. He always went out of his way to talk to reporters.




Why don't we look at Gil Hodges without comparing him to other players of different eras. If you looked at Gil the player on the field the complete player maybe you'd have a different opinion but since you never seen him play you only have stats to look at and you only look at offensive stats. While your at it why don't you check out Gil's fielding maybe he was more then just a useless 1st baseman. Again I'll mention the rules the voters are suppose to go by for election to the HOF.
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Yup, Hodges was a great defensive 1B. Stats have confirmed his reputation as well. But, we're talking about a first baseman here. I have no doubts that first was a hard position to play but either way they don't contribute much value in the field. For a 1B hitting generally makes up 90-95% of their value.

I see the voting rules. You've posted them a billion times. Maybe Hodges did have better character than Allen, but that doesn't mean he's a HOF player. Never met a better gentleman ballplayer than Tim Wakefield. Does that mean he should be in the HOF? The criteria to the HOF should be based mostly on how good a player the guy was. Sportsmanship and character can have a bit of weight, but anyone who considers them as much as playing ability is going to make uninformed decisions. If they were given equal weight a good case could be made that Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby aren't HOF caliber players.

And yes Allen has everything to do with the HOF candidacy of Hodges. Hodges and Allen are both 1B outside the Hall. Only the best 1B outside the Hall should be selected. So if you want to say Hodges should be inducted this year then Allen is an obstacle you must face. It would make no sense to induct Hodges this year when there is another 1B (Allen) more deserving.

So, I'm still waiting for your case on why Gil Hodges was better than Dick Allen.

[iPod]

You'll never understand his full capacity as a player, you're looking at hard stats, playing baseball on the field there are alot of tangibles. Like you said Pee Wee was the captain, Gil was the enforcer, no one messed with Pee Wee or the other Dodgers. Pee Wee and Gil both helped Jackie when other players didn't like the idea of Jackie playing for the Dodgers. These were great teams on the field, the best defensive infield in the league, and year in year out they were in the World Series. Going to Ebbets field was an event, no place like it, where else could you see a great game and hear Hilda Chester's bell and the Dodgers Sym-phony. It is something you can't just read about you had to experience it, you think about the history of baseball 1950's was truly the golden era of baseball, you just can't grunch the numbers you needed to be sitting there between 1st and rightfield drinking that Rheingold and eating that hot dog. The record books can show you some things about a player but it won't show you the complete player, you needed to see the game played on the field.

You're right, I wasn't there. But the writers were. And I'm not just looking at one number. I'm looking at every number I can think of. I'm giving Hodges every opportunity to stir up some reasonable doubt; some real reason why his numbers themselves might be misleading. It could launch him to a Hall of Fame level and explain his lack of MVP success and precedence against his induction. As far as I know, no such objective evidence exists.

[kramer_47]

Now, first of all OPS+ has NOTHING to do with Bill James. James didn't create OPS and he really has nothing to do with it. No one has anything Bill James ever wrote or any stat he created in this thread. The only reason we're talking about him is because you continue to bring him up, claiming the ant Hodges group is "relying on him".

Anyway, the writers didn't give Allen much support, but that has little to do with his actual playing skill but rather because he wasn't very popular with reporters. That has nothing to do with is intangibles or anything like that, it's just that he didn't handle the media well. Writers aren't going to vote for a guy who never wanted to give them any of his time. Hodges was the exact opposite in that regard. He always went out of his way to talk to reporters.
Yup, Hodges was a great defensive 1B. Stats have confirmed his reputation as well. But, we're talking about a first baseman here. I have no doubts that first was a hard position to play but either way they don't contribute much value in the field. For a 1B hitting generally makes up 90-95% of their value.

I see the voting rules. You've posted them a billion times. Maybe Hodges did have better character than Allen, but that doesn't mean he's a HOF player. Never met a better gentleman ballplayer than Tim Wakefield. Does that mean he should be in the HOF? The criteria to the HOF should be based mostly on how good a player the guy was. Sportsmanship and character can have a bit of weight, but anyone who considers them as much as playing ability is going to make uninformed decisions. If they were given equal weight a good case could be made that Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby aren't HOF caliber players.

And yes Allen has everything to do with the HOF candidacy of Hodges. Hodges and Allen are both 1B outside the Hall. Only the best 1B outside the Hall should be selected. So if you want to say Hodges should be inducted this year then Allen is an obstacle you must face. It would make no sense to induct Hodges this year when there is another 1B (Allen) more deserving.

So, I'm still waiting for your case on why Gil Hodges was better than Dick Allen.

Look every time I turn around someone is mentioning that Allen had a lifetime 156 OPS+, someone thought up that basically new stat and Bill James has made up many of the new stats you guys go by. The only reason Allen isn't in the HOF is because of himself, he wasn't a nice person during his career and now he's paying for it. Yes I believe he has HOF stats but he always had that chip on his shoulder that turned off alot of people towards him not only reporters. He also had a very short career he was done by about 32 years old then hung on for 3 more years.
Gil was well liked during his career by most people, he was a gentleman, he accomodated people that can't be said of Allen. Gil was above average in OPS+ at 120 for his career and great 1st baseman, Allen hardly ever played a full season only 5 seasons over 148 games, Gil missed 23 games between 1949-57.
Who made up the rule that hitting is 90-95% of the value for a 1st baseman, that is a crock, probably because most 1st baseman are horrible fielders. Just like winshares is a bad stat, how can you hold the 1st baseman accountable for errors by the 3rd baseman and shortstop, Gil saved his infielders many errors and should get credit not be penalized. The reason 1st base is thought of as an offensive position is because of the Dick Allen DH type bad fielding 1st baseman.
As far as the rules go I didn't make them, I like them and think they should use them as a guideline, why break the rules when someone sees fit to let a malcontent in just because he was a good hitter.
Allen has nothing to do with Gil getting in, Gil has always been near the top in the writers and veterans ballot, Dick has always been taking up the rear. This will probably continue because he has lost votes every year, so I think you're out of luck with Dick you're beating a dead horse even though I think he has the stats to get in.

[kramer_47]

You're right, I wasn't there. But the writers were. And I'm not just looking at one number. I'm looking at every number I can think of. I'm giving Hodges every opportunity to stir up some reasonable doubt; some real reason why his numbers themselves might be misleading. It could launch him to a Hall of Fame level and explain his lack of MVP success and precedence against his induction. As far as I know, no such objective evidence exists.
Gil's numbers are in, now its up to the veterans if they see fit to elect him. As far as the mvp goes the Dodgers were a great team with alot great players, in modern history seeing so many great players on one team has only happened twice the Dodgers and the Yankees. Gil had 3 different managers and they saw fit to bat him anywhere from 4-6 in his prime, they did this according to the pitcher and the park. Gil batted 4-5 in the World Series for the Dodgers behind Duke and ahead of Robby and Campy, right there that shows you something. The park factor penalizes him alot, you don't know how far his homers went, it just takes into fact the size of Ebbets field.
Look at game 5 of the 1956 World Series Don Larsens no hitter, this may not have been a no hitter at Ebbets field. Mantle hit a cheap homer to right that would have hit the wall in Ebbets and Hodges hit a 400 foot shot to deep left center that Mantle caught that would have been out of any park but Yankee Stadium. So how can you really judge with the park factor, Gil's stats would be better if not for the park factor.

[kramer_47]

--Kramer, I have to admire your loyalty. A childhood hero of 50 years ago and you are still carrying the torch. Diehard fans like yourself almost make me want to support Hodges myself. In the end though, inducting him lowers the bar for a dozen other firstbasemen of similar quality. I just don't see that as a positive development.
Thank you leecemark it is 54 years to be exact, It won't lower the bar, Gil was great among other greats. These guys with a little luck could have won 7of 8 pennants they were a fantastic team. With so many great players they had to share the rbi, with one or 2 boppers they get them all but in the Dodgers lineup Gil or Campy or Jackie or Carl would come up with the bases empty because the guy ahead of them knocked in the runs. It was a TEAM, they worked together in the field and at bat to win 60-65% of ther games every year. I bet Gil won more games with his work at 1st base than any other 1st baseman in the majors during the Dodgers run. Remember winning is the bottom line, hitting 40 homers for the Pirates didn't get them out of last place just ask Ralph Kiner. Gil would be a fine addition to the HOF, Jackie, Duke, Campy, and Peewee feel lonely without there great teammate there just ask Duke if he belongs.

[wamby]

Here is the cover of the Sporting News in August 1960 when Gil Hodges was being considered for player of the decade in the 1950's. Just look at all the HOFERS that are on that cover with Gil for consideration for the award.

Looking at this picture, I'm thinking they made a mistake putting Gil Hodges on it. I think Duke Snider had a better claim.

[kramer_47]

Looking at this picture, I'm thinking they made a mistake putting Gil Hodges on it. I think Duke Snider had a better claim.

They could add Duke, but why take Gil off he led all righthanded hitters in homers 310 and rbi 1001 in the 50's. The only person on that cover with more homers in the 50's is Mantle with 10 more at 320 his rbi 841. No one on that cover had more rbi then Gil in the 50's.Duke had more homers and rbi then anyone in the 50's with 326 homers and 1031 rbi . I agree Duke should be there but not at the cost of Gil the best righthanded power hitter of the 50's.

[iPod]

They could add Duke, but why take Gil off he led all righthanded hitters in homers 310 and rbi 1001 in the 50's. The only person on that cover with more homers in the 50's is Mantle with 10 more at 320 his rbi 841. No one on that cover had more rbi then Gil in the 50's.Duke had more homers and rbi then anyone in the 50's with 326 homers and 1031 rbi . I agree Duke should be there but not at the cost of Gil the best righthanded power hitter of the 50's.

Except Duke was better. If you only got to have one I don't really see how you take Hodges.

[kramer_47]

Except Duke was better. If you only got to have one I don't really see how you take Hodges.

Who says you only have to take one, but obviously the people at The Sporting News the baseball authority at the time thought Gil was deserving enough to be there.

[kramer_47]

Can this old Brooklyn Dodger fan chime in with an opinion and some perspective, which will probably get me into trouble with many of my fellow Brooklyn fans:

This thread has generated well over 100 posts, at least half of which attempt to make a case for Hodges being in the HOF.

After 15 years on the ballot, the writers who saw Hodges play and who vote on the Hall still didn’t think he deserved to be in.

I find these annual “get-out-the-vote” campaigns by Gil’s fans an embarrassment that cheapens his candidacy.

I can understand their devotion to Hodges, but if they have to plead and beg and bring up all kinds of peripheral arguments (“He was one of the nicest guys ever to play the game”) and carry on such an intense campaign to get him in, it tells me that purely on the merits, he doesn’t belong. If he did, such desperate, emotional pleas wouldn’t be necessary.

Yes, it would be nice to have Gil in there alongside Jackie and Campy and Duke and Pee Wee, but that’s not reason enough to vote in someone who may have been a solid player and a contributing member of his team, but who, by most objective -- and not emotional criteria -- did not have a Hall of Fame career.

As a Dodgers fan you disappoint me, Hodges had a HOF career, he played both sides of the ball. There are people in the HOF that only played one side hitting or fielding, we aren't begging, Gil has been banging on the door, he is 8 votes short. Who was your favorite player I bet it was probably Duke or Peewee and they are already in. Let us Gil Hodges fans have there day too because no matter what the naysayers say he deserves to be in.

[kramer_47]

Can this old Brooklyn Dodger fan chime in with an opinion and some perspective, which will probably get me into trouble with many of my fellow Brooklyn fans:

This thread has generated well over 100 posts, at least half of which attempt to make a case for Hodges being in the HOF.

After 15 years on the ballot,
I find these annual “get-out-the-vote” campaigns by Gil’s fans an embarrassment that cheapens his candidacy.

I can understand their devotion to Hodges, but if they have to plead and beg and bring up all kinds of peripheral arguments (“He was one of the nicest guys ever to play the game”) and carry on such an intense campaign to get him in, it tells me that purely on the merits, he doesn’t belong. If he did, such desperate, emotional pleas wouldn’t be necessary.

Yes, it would be nice to have Gil in there alongside Jackie and Campy and Duke and Pee Wee, but that’s not reason enough to vote in someone who may have been a solid player and a contributing member of his team, but who, by most objective -- and not emotional criteria -- did not have a Hall of Fame career.

I forgot to say you were wrong when you said "the writers who saw Hodges play and who vote on the Hall still didn’t think he deserved to be in'. Over 63% on the writers ballot thought he should be in and 65% of the veterans committee thought he should be in, the veterans committee is tough too. We aren't talking about someone who got 20% we are talking about a guy that was in the top 5 on 14 of 17 ballots number 1 on the last 2 in veterans committee.

[jalbright]

As a Dodgers fan you disappoint me, Hodges had a HOF career, he played both sides of the ball. There are people in the HOF that only played one side hitting or fielding, we aren't begging, Gil has been banging on the door, he is 8 votes short. Who was your favorite player I bet it was probably Duke or Peewee and they are already in. Let us Gil Hodges fans have there day too because no matter what the naysayers say he deserves to be in.

Thanks for doing such a wonderful job of proving shlevine42's point that this is mostly about our favorite player and all-around good guy Gil Hodges, who a lot of people liked.

[kramer_47]

Thanks for doing such a wonderful job of proving shlevine42's point that this is mostly about our favorite player and all-around good guy Gil Hodges, who a lot of people liked.

No it's not it's about merit, just because I asked who his favorite player was. You guys love to take things out of whole statements and quote on one little thing. Please read everything I said you know I've been very consistant in what I say about Gil Hodges.

[kramer_47]

Actually, my judgment was based primarily on your body of "work" in this thread.

Well you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where I stand on this and have stood on this for 54 years.

[theAmazingMet]

For those who care, there is a new thread in the history of the game thread, comparing Gil to Tony Perez.

[iPod]

Well you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where I stand on this and have stood on this for 54 years.

I think the reason you're rubbing a lot of people the wrong way is that you're being so stubborn about this. Yes, we weren't there to see Hodges. But, it goes both ways. Have you honestly given advanced formulas and numerical analysis their fair shake? We do a lot of work around here trying to get the numbers as accurate as they possibly can be, and you just refuse to look at any of them. Will you at least admit that we're dealing with a player that, at absolute best, is a very, very low tier Hall of Famer?

[kramer_47]

I had a similar argument on the general baseball thread (History of the game) a few months back. While I personally feel Gil deserves enshrinement, those who oppose his entry are just as passionate about keeping him out as people like me are for putting him in. This argument will not end until he is rightfully put in the HOF. Again I am not going to rehash an old argument, but IMO Gil has earned the right, both as a player, and a world series winning manager. Who knows if the Mets could have won more with him. Who would have the nerve to walk out to the OF to replace a non-hustling player, and have it galvanize a team, rather than destroy it?

I don't know why they are fighting so hard to keep him out, this isn't Rizzuto or Mazeroski, Gil is a legitimate HOF candidate because of what he did on the field. He produced wins for the Dodgers on offense and defense.

[kramer_47]

I think the reason you're rubbing a lot of people the wrong way is that you're being so stubborn about this. Yes, we weren't there to see Hodges. But, it goes both ways. Have you honestly given advanced formulas and numerical analysis their fair shake? We do a lot of work around here trying to get the numbers as accurate as they possibly can be, and you just refuse to look at any of them. Will you at least admit that we're dealing with a player that, at absolute best, is a very, very low tier Hall of Famer?

I'm sorry i'm rubbing people the wrong way, but i've supported Gil for a very long time much longer then these new numbers have come on the scene and probably before most of you guys were born. Respect goes both ways I respect your opinions even though they are different then mine, why are you guys being so stubborn, no one is listening to my opinion that Gil was a complete player. Some of the advance formulas are so complex maybe Bill James and a few others understand them. I'm trying to grasp some of them because most of you think that is the only way to go across the eras to judge the players. Gil has an OPS+ of 120 that is 20 points above average but he is penalized for playing at Ebbets field which I think is very subjective because we really don't know how far his home runs went, they could have all gone 350-400 feet and been out of any park. There is alot of guessing going on, then with the win shares he is penalized for errors made by his infielders, this is more guessing because we don't know how many errors were made on throws or just bobbles by the fielders. He is penalized for being a 1st baseman because that is a nothing position, he is penalized for being on the great Dodgers teams and coming in 4-5 in the mvp voting. No one seems to like the pure stats anymore where Gil is on equal ground with every other ballplayer. I admit he isn't a high tier HOF but he is certainly as good or better then some guys in there. Like I said lets see some stats on his being a good fielder a winner of 3 gold gloves and maybe more if they were given out before 1957, his making 8 all star teams, lets look at the complete player instead of just offensive numbers which aren't bad.

[iPod]

"Rubbing the wrong way" might have been the wrong word, but I suppose my point is, how complete a player could he be if he played first base (as opposed to SS, 2B, etc), wasn't much of a baserunner, and most years didn't hit for a good average?

He's a borderline player. I think he's a little below, you think he's a little above. We both have reasons for it. We're probably not as far off from each other as we both think. Let's just leave it at that.

[jalbright]

He's a borderline player. I think he's a little below, you think he's a little above. We both have reasons for it. We're probably not as far off from each other as we both think. Let's just leave it at that.

I'm with iPod on this. The problem is, how does one define a complete player. If it's five tools, Gil most assuredly didn't have great speed. It seems that kramer_47's definition is a good defensive 1st baseman who is also a good hitter. I think along with iPod a player can meet that definition of a complete player without being a great one.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

"Rubbing the wrong way" might have been the wrong word, but I suppose my point is, how complete a player could he be if he played first base (as opposed to SS, 2B, etc), wasn't much of a baserunner, and most years didn't hit for a good average?
He's a borderline player. I think he's a little below, you think he's a little above. We both have reasons for it. We're probably not as far off from each other as we both think. Let's just leave it at that.

For Jalbright and ipod

You talk about me being stubborn, you guys are stubborn, you keep bringing up that he couldn't be a complete player because he was a 1st baseman. Gil was a great athlete he was signed as a shortstop, he came up as a 3rd baseman, after spending 2 years away in the war he went to the minors for a year to become a catcher. He made it back to the majors as a catcher before they signed Campy, when Campy came up in 1948 Gil played 1st and caught some, then in 1949 became a fulltime 1st baseman with occasional play in the outfield and other positions. Why are you saying he had no speed, Leo Durocher said he had good speed for a big man, 5 years he finished in the top 10 in national league in power/ speed numbers. He was quick around the base and had good range, he came in on a bunt like a righthanded version of Keith Hernandez, he was the best at getting off the base on close calls and getting the call. He hit for power and a good average almost every year, he was the number 1-2 run producer every year on the great Dodgers teams.

[jalbright]

"good speed for a big man" is a nice way of saying he's not slow--not that he's fast. His best season in steals was 10. From 1951 on, we have caught stealings, so we can calculate his success rate. He stole 39 from 1951 to the end of his career, and was caught 31 times. Boy, a 56% success rate at stealing over 13 years is truly convincing proof he was a fast runner.

In the major leagues, Gil Hodges was a first baseman, not a shortstop or third baseman. He played 1908 games at first, and (assuming he didn't double up in any games) 176 at all other positions, no more than 79 at any one spot (if outfield is counted as only one spot). Being a good defensive player at all but the corner outfielder spots and first base along with being a good hitter might be a decent description of a "complete player". Unfortunately for you, the impact of a first baseman's defense isn't huge. Why do you think guys like Dick Stuart ("Dr. Strangeglove") wind up on first? It's a way of hiding their defensive deficiencies. Yes, a good glove at first base can help, but the same thing that allows teams to hide bad defensive players at first limits the impact a good glove has there. It's two sides of the same coin.

Yes, I'm stubborn. I'll admit it. I have a deep, abiding respect for facts, the truth and logic. And when I feel someone is taking liberties with either facts or the truth or is drawing poor conclusions based on poor logic, there's a good chance I'll call them on it.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

"good speed for a big man" is a nice way of saying he's not slow--not that he's fast. His best season in steals was 10. From 1951 on, we have caught stealings, so we can calculate his success rate. He stole 39 from 1951 to the end of his career, and was caught 31 times. Boy, a 56% success rate at stealing over 13 years is truly convincing proof he was a fast runner.

In the major leagues, Gil Hodges was a first baseman, not a shortstop or third baseman. He played 1908 games at first, and (assuming he didn't double up in any games) 176 at all other positions, no more than 79 at any one spot (if outfield is counted as only one spot). Being a good defensive player at all but the corner outfielder spots and first base along with being a good hitter might be a decent description of a "complete player". Unfortunately for you, the impact of a first baseman's defense isn't huge. Why do you think guys like Dick Stuart ("Dr. Strangeglove") wind up on first? It's a way of hiding their defensive deficiencies. Yes, a good glove at first base can help, but the same thing that allows teams to hide bad defensive players at first limits the impact a good glove has there. It's two sides of the same coin.

Yes, I'm stubborn. I'll admit it. I have a deep, abiding respect for facts, the truth and logic. And when I feel someone is taking liberties with either facts or the truth or is drawing poor conclusions based on poor logic, there's a good chance I'll call them on it.

Jim Albright

I don't mind you being self proclaimed keeper of the HOF gate but when you call me or anyone else liars or less then truthful because we see things different then you you are crossing over the line. Everyone has an opinion here you don't know me or my experience in baseball, maybe if you listened once in awhile to an oldtimer like I did when I was young( who actually seen the guys play) you would maybe learn something that isn't listed in the stats, you want to be the judge and jury. I'm here giving my opinion and trying to learn about all these new stats and you and the other guys are saying it is my way or the highway. That's not right, tunnel vision never got anyone anywhere, like I'm trying to see it your way it is a two way street cut me and the other older guys some slack. I'm not a liar or do I try to embellish anything I say here, everything I've said here is exactly like I saw it, I do go back to some stats to refresh my memory but that is about it. I don't take liberties from the truth or the facts either, I'm using my good judgement that has gotten me through 59 years pretty successfully, the only poor logic here is the guessing that goes on with these new stats.

[jalbright]

Read what I said carefully--it's all ORs--meaning it could be any one of the above. I'll agree it's hard to call you a liar given how few facts you have actually chosen to present.

[kramer_47]

Read what I said carefully--it's all ORs--meaning it could be any one of the above. I'll agree it's hard to call you a liar given how few facts you have actually chosen to present.
What disrepect, you are just a know it all, I've presented plently of actual facts not guesses like you. You called me a liar or an embellisher because you don't agree with me and that is uncalled for. We can see by your Albright's musings that you like to blow smoke and you think you are better then anyone else. Well I got news for you we all put our pants on the same way.

[theAmazingMet]

What disrepect, you are just a know it all, I've presented plently of actual facts not guesses like you. You called me a liar or an embellisher because you don't agree with me and that is uncalled for. We can see by your Albright's musings that you like to blow smoke and you think you are better then anyone else. Well I got news for you we all put our pants on the same way.
Don't they put their pants on upside down in australia? :crazy

[kramer_47]

Don't they put their pants on upside down in australia? :crazy I would have accepted it if he stopped here "Originally Posted by jalbright
Read what I said carefully--it's all ORs--meaning it could be any one of the above". But the kid had to go on and put an uncalled for dig in "I'll agree it's hard to call you a liar given how few facts you have actually chosen to present.

[runningshoes]

I would have accepted it if he stopped here "Originally Posted by jalbright
Read what I said carefully--it's all ORs--meaning it could be any one of the above". But the kid had to go on and put an uncalled for dig in "I'll agree it's hard to call you a liar given how few facts you have actually chosen to present.

I never thought of Jim as a kid.

Is this true Jim? :D

[kramer_47]

I never thought of Jim as a kid.

Is this true Jim? :D

He has no age listed but he acts like one sometimes.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

This site is supporting Gil as well.

www.ebbets-field.com

[runningshoes]

This site is supporting Gil as well.

www.ebbets-field.com

Nice site, but I sense a bit of a bias. :D

[kramer_47]

This site is supporting Gil as well.

www.ebbets-field.com

Thank you yankees rule that is a very nice site, it has alot of info on the Dodgers there also.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

Thank you yankees rule that is a very nice site, it has alot of info on the Dodgers there also.

You're welcome. Stupid that I didn't mention this site before. I have it marked as a favorite for about a year. :(

[theAmazingMet]

I'll end this debate right now. Gil Hodges deserves to be in the HOF. Why? Cause I say so. End of discussion. No, I wont debate it with these crazy new fangled stats, half of which seem like egyptian heiroglyhics to me. Gil was the premier 1B of the 50's. There are faw less deserving players in the HOF. If Harry Carson finally, and rightfully got into the Football HOF, Gil is not far behind. I'll take it on faith.

[538280]

This site is supporting Gil as well.

www.ebbets-field.com

But, man, look at that Gil Hodges page. It just doesn't prove anything about him in the HOF. It's all nice and fun, but come on. Gil Hodges picture gallery? Gil Hodges in the community? That sort of stuff is just reaching and trying to get people to feel sympathy for their good old boy. Basically all I've ever seen the Hodges people do is subject it to pressure politics and say things like "it's an insult that you dare speak against such a great man like Hodges".

Kramer, you have done a much better job than anyone I have ever seen at doing Hodges' case. But, his statistics just frankly are not up to HOF standards.

[kramer_47]

But, man, look at that Gil Hodges page. It just doesn't prove anything about him in the HOF. It's all nice and fun, but come on. Gil Hodges picture gallery? Gil Hodges in the community? That sort of stuff is just reaching and trying to get people to feel sympathy for their good old boy. Basically all I've ever seen the Hodges people do is subject it to pressure politics and say things like "it's an insult that you dare speak against such a great man like Hodges".

Kramer, you have done a much better job than anyone I have ever seen at doing Hodges' case. But, his statistics just frankly are not up to HOF standards.

Thank you 538280 for the compliment, I can respect your opinion, alot of people feel he was very good for a great team but just falling short of HOF stats. I feel if they look at him as a big contributor to those great Dodgers teams which he was both on offense and defense he is a good candidate. Face it Gil was the best defensive 1st baseman of the 1950's he was no Dick Stuart.

[kramer_47]

Nice site, but I sense a bit of a bias. :D

Bias, there is no bias coming from the Brooklyn Dodgers camp, do you expect the Ebbets-field page to be promoting the Yankees.

[runningshoes]

Bias, there is no bias coming from the Brooklyn Dodgers camp, do you expect the Ebbets-field page to be promoting the Yankees.

:D

I know you know what bias means, and presenting Hodges as a viable candidate, even though pretty much everyone I know who knows anything about baseball says he falls short, shows a bias on your part as Brooklyn Dodgers fan.

Call me crazy, but I suspect the same bias applies to a site dedicated to the Dodgers and at the same time calls for his induction.

[kramer_47]

:D

I know you know what bias means, and presenting Hodges as a viable candidate, even though pretty much everyone I know who knows anything about baseball says he falls short, shows a bias on your part as Brooklyn Dodgers fan.

Call me crazy, but I suspect the same bias applies to a site dedicated to the Dodgers and at the same time calls for his induction.

Bias, I don't know anything about bias, who knows about baseball you mean the so called number crunches . It's funny you used falls short I guess you know alot about falling short being a red sox fan.

[runningshoes]

I guess you know alot about falling short being a red sox fan.

How old did you say you were?

Seriously, you're posts have been degenerating the last couple days. I think you need to get some sleep.

[kramer_47]

How old did you say you were?

Seriously, you're posts have been degenerating the last couple days. I think you need to get some sleep.

I get plenty of sleep, well i'm sorry my posts have been degenerating I guess i'll have to get back to more substance but it won't matter you guys will find them not enough.

[runningshoes]

I get plenty of sleep, well i'm sorry my posts have been degenerating I guess i'll have to get back to more substance but it won't matter you guys will find them not enough.

I don't write my posts expecting to sway you because I know I can't and I respect that but that doesn't mean I won't give my opinion.

It's just like the Joe Jackson debate. Unless something comes to light for either side, I know none of us will ever change our opinions.

Hodges might get in when the VC votes and if he does I'll think it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. He just doesn't get my vote.

[kramer_47]

I don't write my posts expecting to sway you because I know I can't and I respect that but that doesn't mean I won't give my opinion.

It's just like the Joe Jackson debate. Unless something comes to light for either side, I know none of us will ever change our opinions.

Hodges might get in when the VC votes and if he does I'll think it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. He just doesn't get my vote.

I hope he does get in it is something I've wanted for a long time, but I do respect your opinion you look at it differently then me that's what makes the world go around. No one should be looked down on because their opinion on anything is different, I'm trying to study these new numbers and what they mean but none of us needs something shoved down their throat.

[jalbright]

What disrepect, you are just a know it all, I've presented plently of actual facts not guesses like you. You called me a liar or an embellisher because you don't agree with me and that is uncalled for. We can see by your Albright's musings that you like to blow smoke and you think you are better then anyone else. Well I got news for you we all put our pants on the same way.

Chill, my good man. I happen to be closing fast on also being eligible to join AARP. You have heard a lot about not using many facts in this thread--I merely repeated it. If you don't like my stuff, that's your privilege.

However, I will make a suggestion. Let's get beyond this silly catfight--it does neither of us any good. If you want to do something constructive, I can see a way you can't hurt Hodges' candidacy and might be able to help it. Really develop the facts behind his baseball career until he really started producing in 1949. When did he sign his first contract? How did he get his shot, small as it was, in 1943? When did he go into the military? What did he do? I'd guess he was a serviceman who happened to have played ball rather than somebody who played three or four times a week for some military base team--but we've got to have clear information there. You'll see why in a minute, if you haven't already surmised where I'm headed. When did he get out of the service? When he got back into baseball, where did he go? Why didn't he produce well before 1949? Was it simple physical maturity (which service in the military wouldn't affect) or lack of experience with major league pitching (dealing with the curve, for a possible example) that he improved in order to become a star player?

The point of all these questions is to document whether and how much his military service cost him in his major league career. I have argued and will continue to argue it is dead wrong to penalize a guy for serving his country. It may turn out that it really didn't affect Hodges much (physically maturing, or the unlikely scenario of really being a ballplayer who happened to wear a uniform) or enough to make him a virtual clone of Tony Perez. I and some others happen to think Perez squeaks in and Hodges belongs out, the main difference between the two being Perez' longevity. Make the case that the difference in the longevity of the two is purely a function of Hodges' military service. The only real problem I think is likely to prove difficult is the issue of why Hodges didn't produce like a major league first baseman until 1949. The exact nature of what you find in this search will determine whether it can change my mind or the minds of others--but it would be new and factual. You'd still have problems with those who don't see Perez as HOF quality, but it's a way to pick up the added support you seek. If it falls flat, you haven't hurt his case any and all you've lost is the time to do the research. If it works, you may have found the missing piece of the puzzle. Of course, your presentation will be much more persuasive if you can point to sources to support your version of events.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

[QUOTE=jalbright]Chill, my good man. I happen to be closing fast on also being eligible to join AARP. You have heard a lot about not using many facts in this thread--I merely repeated it. If you don't like my stuff, that's your privilege.

However, I will make a suggestion. Let's get beyond this silly catfight--it does neither of us any good. If you want to do something constructive, I can see a way you can't hurt Hodges' candidacy and might be able to help it. Really develop the facts behind his baseball career until he really started producing in 1949. When did he sign his first contract? How did he get his shot, small as it was, in 1943? When did he go into the military? What did he do? I'd guess he was a serviceman who happened to have played ball rather than somebody who played three or four times a week for some military base team--but we've got to have clear information there. You'll see why in a minute, if you haven't already surmised where I'm headed. When did he get out of the service? When he got back into baseball, where did he go? Why didn't he produce well before 1949? Was it simple physical maturity (which service in the military wouldn't affect) or lack of experience with major league pitching (dealing with the curve, for a possible example) that he improved in order to become a star player?

The point of all these questions is to document whether and how much his military service cost him in his major league career. I have argued and will continue to argue it is dead wrong to penalize a guy for serving his country. It may turn out that it really didn't affect Hodges much (physically maturing, or the unlikely scenario of really being a ballplayer who happened to wear a uniform) or enough to make him a virtual clone of Tony Perez. I and some others happen to think Perez squeaks in and Hodges belongs out, the main difference between the two being Perez' longevity. Make the case that the difference in the longevity of the two is purely a function of Hodges' military service. The only real problem I think is likely to prove difficult is the issue of why Hodges didn't produce like a major league first baseman until 1949. The exact nature of what you find in this search will determine whether it can change my mind or the minds of others--but it would be new and factual. You'd still have problems with those who don't see Perez as HOF quality, but it's a way to pick up the added support you seek. If it falls flat, you haven't hurt his case any and all you've lost is the time to do the research. If it works, you may have found the missing piece of the puzzle. Of course, your presentation will be much more persuasive if you can point to sources to support your version of events.

Jim Albright quote


Thank you for your insight, you're right a catfight never helped anyone being constructive as you suggest will help, I don't know if you have seen it but a few days ago I did state his time in the military service may have hurt him. I didn't reference what I said it just came from my old memory bank from what I read and heard. I will go ahead like you said and reference Gil from the time he was signed by the Dodgers. I think it should make a difference the big war hurt alot of careers, Johnny Sain lost 3 years who knows what his numbers would have been, I bet there are a few others out there that would have had HOF careers with those 2-4 years that they missed because their country called. Thanks again for being level headed and making a very good suggestion.

[jalbright]

You're welcome--and I'd rather this be constructive. If we disagree, so be it. I'm looking forward to what answers you can come up with. I guess I'm sensitized to the issue of military service since my wife served many years in the Army reserves in the nursing corps--long enough to rise to Lt. Col and get a pension out of it (we met when she only had a few years to go to retirement from the Army). I don't easily abide folks getting screwed for serving their country.

That said, the key issue is how much is Hodges' start due to physical or emotional maturity (which the military doesn't hinder in the least so long as one isn't injured) and how much is time away from the game (which would be undercut if he somehow managed the unlikely situation of being a ballplayer in uniform in WW II)? Obviously, he wasn't ready the way things turned out until at least 1948, maybe 1949. As I said in the other thread, what was going on in 1946? These issues make it difficult but not impossible to make the argument we're talking about. I will say this, I would want careful documentation from sources like you're talking about, newspapers of the day, maybe from the books about that Dodger squad.

By the way, I don't doubt you might have mentioned military service, but my initial reaction would have been what it was in the other thread (i.e. his record on its face doesn't prove that military service cost him). Actually, had he not come up in '43, I would be even more skeptical of the argument than I am at the moment. However, he was thought of as good enough to get a shot then, though the exact circumstances will be very important. If he was indeed close enough that he would have been full time in 1945 or 1946 rather than 1948, then the analogy to Perez probably holds water. The other thing was that the other thread caused me to do a little more digging into comparing the records of Perez and Hodges. Frankly, I expected Perez to be more dominant at about the same level of plate appearances as Hodges than he actually was. Personally, I think I'd rather have Perez in his time and place than Hodges in his, but it wasn't as clear-cut as I thought it would be. Combine all this information which really sunk in for the first time, and I have to concede the possiblity this argument could work.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

As an aside, pitchers and wartime are a difficult matter. Craig Wright in the book he co-authored The Diamond Appraised, makes a rather compelling argument that pitchers at least in many ways benefit from not being asked to throw so many innings. It seems at least plausible that they gain at least as much in longevity as they lost. Thus, I find it hard to give them much help. Hitters just lose the time, so they certainly deserve consideration.

Jim Albright

[tonypug]

Just a quick word on Hodges military service. He was a decorated Marine veteran of Guadalcanal in WWII. Hodges would never talk about his war experiences. Some ot the bitterest fighting was at Guadalcanal, so its understandable.

[kramer_47]

You're welcome--and I'd rather this be constructive. If we disagree, so be it. I'm looking forward to what answers you can come up with. I guess I'm sensitized to the issue of military service since my wife served many years in the Army reserves in the nursing corps--long enough to rise to Lt. Col and get a pension out of it (we met when she only had a few years to go to retirement from the Army). I don't easily abide folks getting screwed for serving their country.

That said, the key issue is how much is Hodges' start due to physical or emotional maturity (which the military doesn't hinder in the least so long as one isn't injured) and how much is time away from the game (which would be undercut if he somehow managed the unlikely situation of being a ballplayer in uniform in WW II)? Obviously, he wasn't ready the way things turned out until at least 1948, maybe 1949. As I said in the other thread, what was going on in 1946? These issues make it difficult but not impossible to make the argument we're talking about. I will say this, I would want careful documentation from sources like you're talking about, newspapers of the day, maybe from the books about that Dodger squad.

By the way, I don't doubt you might have mentioned military service, but my initial reaction would have been what it was in the other thread (i.e. his record on its face doesn't prove that military service cost him). Actually, had he not come up in '43, I would be even more skeptical of the argument than I am at the moment. However, he was thought of as good enough to get a shot then, though the exact circumstances will be very important. If he was indeed close enough that he would have been full time in 1945 or 1946 rather than 1948, then the analogy to Perez probably holds water. The other thing was that the other thread caused me to do a little more digging into comparing the records of Perez and Hodges. Frankly, I expected Perez to be more dominant at about the same level of plate appearances as Hodges than he actually was. Personally, I think I'd rather have Perez in his time and place than Hodges in his, but it wasn't as clear-cut as I thought it would be. Combine all this information which really sunk in for the first time, and I have to concede the possiblity this argument could work.

Jim Albright

Thank you for supporting the veterans, as a veteran of 4 years in the service I appreciate that.
This is just part of the proof that Gil was a combat Marine, he spend about 21/2 years in the Marines between training and time overseas I'm working on getting exact dates now. As Tony alluded to Gil spent time in one of the hottest pacific theaters, earning medals for his brave service. This article comes from Military.com, it is called corps athletes of the past.
http://www.military.com/features/0,,78603,00.html

"Legendary Brooklyn Dodgers first baseman and New York Mets manager Gil Hodges, who hit 370 home runs over an 18-year major-league career, was a Marine option in the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps program before he was called to active duty.
Hodges served with the 16th Antiaircraft Bn, and during the 18 months he was stationed in the South Pacific, he saw action on Tinian and Okinawa. Hodges was promoted to sergeant during the war and received a Bronze Star. He also earned a Combat Action Ribbon, but never gained the recognition he deserved for that honor until he posthumously received the award in June 2004. At a presentation ceremony held at Shea Stadium, his wife said, “He was so proud to be an American and so proud to be a Marine".
This is from SABR.ORG
http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=20&pid=6399

"After two years, he found himself a full-time drill press operator and playing on the company team. He was bird-dogged by local sporting goods storeowner and part-time Dodgers scout Stanley Feezle, who also would later sign hurler Carl Erskine for the Dodgers. Although Hodges was originally scouted as a shortstop, General Manager Branch Rickey noticed a hitch in Hodges' throw from short and suggested he try catching. [New York Times, April 3, 1972]

Hodges had the proverbial "cup of coffee" with the 1943 team, making his debut on August 23, wearing uniform #4 instead of his customary #14 and playing third base instead of first. [Boys of Summer] A member of the Marines R.O.T.C., he was drafted into the Marine Corps and spent much of the next 21/2 years stationed on Pearl Harbor, Tinian and Okinawa as a gunner in the 16th Anti-Aircraft Battalion. Discharged as a sergeant in early 1946, Hodges was a recipient of the Bronze Star for his deeds in the South Pacific. Don Hoak, a future Dodgers teammate, said, "We kept hearing stories about this big guy from Indiana who killed Japs [Japanese soldiers] with his bare hands." [New York Times, April 3, 1972]

The following info comes from the 1950 Brooklyn Dodgers official yearbook.

He returned in 1946 and Branch Rickey after a long wait could finally convert Gil to catcher, Branch sent him to Newport News to learn the catchers position. Gil was an all star with Newport News, his first year of catching, hitting .278 with 8 homers and 64 rbi in 129 games after the long layoff. In 1947 he came up to the Dodgers to stay as the backup catcher, but Campy came in the middle of 1948 and Gil became the 1st baseman.
There is more to come as I find it, but as you can see he lost 2 years of playing time making me believe he would have been as good in 1947 as 1949 if not for his military service.

[jalbright]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I expected this part of the effort to fall in line. It would be nice if we had a better idea of his career in baseball before entering the service, but it might not be essential. The more highly he was regarded at age 19, the more it helps the idea he would have started earlier and succeeded. The hardest part is why he took so long to get it going in the majors.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I expected this part of the effort to fall in line. It would be nice if we had a better idea of his career in baseball before entering the service, but it might not be essential. The more highly he was regarded at age 19, the more it helps the idea he would have started earlier and succeeded. The hardest part is why he took so long to get it going in the majors.

Jim Albright

The Dodgers signed Gil and he went right to the majors, Branch Rickey wanted to make him a catcher so after the service in 1946 he sent Gil to the minors to learn how to catch. Obviously Gil reacted well in the minors after he shook off the rust and became an all star and was back in the majors in 1947 as a backup catcher.

[jalbright]

There's only one part of that explanation that doesn't quite seem to fit the record--why only 2 AB in 1943 if that was so? Even if he was called up in say May of 1943, you'd think he'd get more than 2 AB under that scenario. I'm not saying there cannot be an explanation, but it seems that particular part of the narrative needs more exploration to be convincing.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

There's only one part of that explanation that doesn't quite seem to fit the record--why only 2 AB in 1943 if that was so? Even if he was called up in say May of 1943, you'd think he'd get more than 2 AB under that scenario. I'm not saying there cannot be an explanation, but it seems that particular part of the narrative needs more exploration to be convincing.

Jim Albright

He signed late in 1943 then went in the Marines right after he played that 1 game. Right now I'm trying to get the exact dates of service. He was in the Navy ROTC with a Marine option and was called up to the Marines. He was 19 and 6 months that is about right, I remember during Vietnam I was going to be called up at 19 and 7 months and I joined the Air Force at 19 and 4 months.

[kramer_47]

Right now I'm trying to get information and Gil's time in the Marines. It seems logical to me that anyone putting down there glove bat and ball for 2 1/2 years would have their development retarded by those 2 1/2 years. If we can prove this to the Veterans committee that with those extra 2 years Gil's stats would have been better by 40-50 home runs, 150-200 rbi, 250 hits that would put the icing on the cake of a HOF career.