Gil Hodges

[Duke of URL]

Instead of playing games with Pete Rose, Bud Selig should be pushing for Gil Hodges. What a great player and an even greater human being. Gil was one of the best fielding first basemen ever, outstanding hitter and a general credit to the game. It would only be fair that Gil join Jackie, Pee Wee, Duke and Campy in Cooperstown. Pete Rose? No matter how many hits you had, you never will be a Gil Hodges. If Rose gets in, Bart Giamatti will be rolling in his grave!

[Captain Cold Nose]

As the Commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig should not be pushing for anyone to make it to the Hall of Fame. Mr. Selig has many various and complex issues to deal with, no matter how poorly he is doing so. Somebody else's personal agenda should not be added to that list.

[CharlestonCF]

Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
As the Commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig should not be pushing for anyone to make it to the Hall of Fame. Mr. Selig has many various and complex issues to deal with, no matter how poorly he is doing so. Somebody else's personal agenda should not be added to that list.

Agreed.

[wrgptfan]

Originally posted by Duke of URL
Pete Rose? No matter how many hits you had, you never will be a Gil Hodges. If Rose gets in, Bart Giamatti will be rolling in his grave!

I agree that Rose does not deserve to be in the HoF. But what does that have to do with Hodges' candidacy? He is, at best, a marginal HoFer.

--
Dave Kent

[Cougar]

In concert, Hodges' playing and managing achievements definitely deserve a plaque.

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by Cougar
In concert, Hodges' playing and managing achievements definitely deserve a plaque.

Only if your a diehard Brooklyn Dodger fan like me.

[Brad Harris]

I would not vote for Hodges, if given the opportunity. There are more deserving candidates than Hodges.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Chancellor
I would not vote for Hodges, if given the opportunity. There are more deserving candidates than Hodges.

But isn't that a separate issue in and of itself? Why should someone else's worthiness impact whether or not Hodges is worthy?

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
But isn't that a separate issue in and of itself? Why should someone else's worthiness impact whether or not Hodges is worthy?

You're right. I shouldn't have confused the issue by adding the commentary.

Gil Hodges was not a great player.
Gil Hodges did not have a great playing career.
Gil Hodges was not a great manager.
Gil Hodges did not have a great managing career.

His two "careers" can't be melded into anything resembling greatness. I have to disagree - for a change - with Cougar on that point.

Hodges simply doesn't deserve election. The BBWAA was right to reject his candidacy.

Gil Hodges doesn't belong in Cooperstown. Period.

That I can name 20 other players who do, but don't garner nearly the popular support the Hodges candidacy does is irrelevant.

Gil Hodges is not a Hall of Famer. Nor should he ever be.

[Cougar]

We should strive to disagree maybe 5-10% of the time just to make it look good.:)

Gil Hodges was a great player, or at worst near-great. He was a key component of the legendary Brooklyn Dodger teams of the 40's and 50's.

In the 12 seasons he played full time (with about 7 others as a part timer), he hit for power very well for the time. Ebbets helped, but he still got the hits. His average was at least solid and sometimes better, and he drew walks well for the time period. He had lots of RBI -- and yes, it helps when Pee Wee, Jackie, Duke, and Campy hit ahead of you. He was an extraordinary fielder at first base and part of the leadership structure of the team (by all accounts).

Is he the best first baseman not in the Hall? No, I wouldn't claim that. But his accomplishments make him quite worthy of consideration.

Managing: Most of the teams he managed had very little talent, and his overall record is unimpressive. But managing the Miracle Mets is a one year accomplishment as a manager comparable to Maris' 1961 season, or Gibson's 1968 -- a single season accomplishment that changes the course of the game.

I think the combination of a near-great to great career at 1b with the signal accomplishment of managing the Miracle Mets merits induction. Reasonable people can disagree -- I just hope 3 out of 4 reasonable people see it my way one of these days.

[The Commissioner]

My question regarding Hodges is this... it is agreed that Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski belong in the Hall becasue they are generally regarded as being among the best to ever field their positions. Hodges is also supposedly among the best to ever field his position. Yet, why is it he tends to be regarded as hitter who was also a great fielder, rather than a great fielder who was a much better hitter than Smith or Maz?

[Cougar]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
My question regarding Hodges is this... it is agreed that Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski belong in the Hall becasue they are generally regarded as being among the best to ever field their positions. Hodges is also supposedly among the best to ever field his position. Yet, why is it he tends to be regarded as hitter who was also a great fielder, rather than a great fielder who was a much better hitter than Smith or Maz?

A good question. I think three reasons:

1. SS and 2b defense is generally considered much more important than 1b defense. The greatest fielding 1b of all time not only couldn't make the HOF if he hit like Ozzie or Maz, he probably couldn't even keep a starting job.

2. Smith and Maz are thought to likely the very best fielders at their position ever. While some think Hodges may be the very best, he's far from the consensus choice like the other two. Arguments are made for Keith Hernandez, Vic Power, Wes Parker, Charlie Grimm, Bill White, Frank McCormick, even Hal Chase. One can safely say Hodges is among the very best defensive 1b ever, but claiming he's the very best is tough. (I think one reason for this is that the metrics for measuring 1b defense is poor.)

3. This is a little related to #1 -- Hodges' hitting stats are by themselves enough to make a good case for admission. 370 HR, 7 straight 100 RBI seasons, 2 seasons of 40+ HR when that meant something...the guy could rake, and it's easier to see that in offensive stats 50 years after the fact than it is to see what a superior fielder he is.

The fact is, Hodges' case is quite multi-dimensional: Offense, defense, team leadership, character, remarkable fan popularity, managing...maybe even a little extra sympathy for his early demise. Some of those things maybe shouldn't matter, but I think he qualifies even without them.

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by Macker
One problem with Hodges' candidacy is that he can be too easily interchanged with other good fielding, good hitting first basemen. Take Ozzie Smith away from the Cardinals & what player to you trade for to play short?

Joe Adcock & Ted Kluszewski are fringe candidates for the Hall. But put either of them at 1st base for Brooklyn & the Dodgers don't miss a beat. Hodges was a good player, but not an all-time great. It wouldn't be a disgrace to put Hodges in the Hall, but it's no crime that he isn't there.

You can put Phil Cavarretta in the mix, good fielder, high lifetime batting ave., short on power, but in my opinion as good as the above mentioned.

[Brad Harris]

Addressing the Smith/Mazeroski question:

I think a majority of fans would say that Keith Hernandez probably was the greatest fielding first baseman in history. But not by nearly as great a margin as people would agree over Smith and Maz at short and second.

The vast majority of fans will agree that Smith and Maz were the greatest defensive players ever at their respective positions, two of the most demanding fielding positions on the diamond.

To be among the greatest fielders at one of the least important fielding positions on the diamond doesn't carry the same significance.

Even so...Mazeroski and Smith are barely marginal Hall of Famers even with that distinction and shouldn't be considered the standard for future selections.

The real question is this: does Hodges' career fall into the Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey, Murray, Killebrew, Greenberg, etc. group? Or is it more like that of non-Hall of Famers like Hernandez, Mattingly, Garvey, Allen, Adcock, etc.?

The best argument one could make to get Hodges elected ought to be that his accomplishments stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the vast majority of Hall of Fame first basemen.

I don't see that it can.

[Brad Harris]

Here's a breakdown of Gil Hodges' career using win shares:

Hodges was never the best player on his own team. Besides the expected Hall of Famers who usually surpassed him in terms of value (Robinson, Snider, etc.), there were the occasional seasons by players like Jim Gilliam, Don Newcombe and Carl Furillo where they were of more value to the team than Hodges. In all those years, not once was Hodges the best player on the team. (He was the 2nd-best only thrice and 3rd-best two times. Hence, only 5 times in his whole career was he one of the 3 best players on the team and never once was he the best.) This is almost more of a testament to what an incredible collection of talent the Dodgers had in those days moreso than a statement of Hodges' production.

Among National League first basemen during Hodges' career, he finished in the top five 12 times, among the top three 10 of those 12 times and among the top 2 first basemen in the NL every year from 1949-54. He was, however, the best first baseman in the league only four times (in five years), including three consecutive seasons (1951-53). In his prime, only Musial (after he moved to first), Ted Kluszewski (when healthy enough to get the plate appearances), Joe Adcock (when not platooned by his manager) and (once) Earl Torgeson bettered him. Oh yeah...and one year he finished third behind Musial and one Ed Bouchee. :rolleyes:

Among all National Leaguers, Hodges finished among the top ten 4 times in his career, from 1951-54. However, he finished 7th twice and tied for 10th place the other two times.

So here's the best comparisons I can make for Hodges:

Hodges produced at an all-star level (20+ win shares) for 9 consecutive seasons (1949-57), though had more than 26 (29, to be exact) only once (in 1954).

Hodges was never the best player on his team (which has several Hall of Famers - I forgot to add Campanella's name to the list earlier - but was among the best (in the top five) for eight years running (1950-57).

Hodges was the best first baseman in the league 4 times in a 5-year period of time.

Hodges was among the ten best players in the league for four consecutive seasons.

This is mildly impressive, but it's far from certain that he belongs in the Hall of Fame based on this evidence.

In a career of fairly decent length, Hodges was the best player at his position only four times. And this in a league/time when there were only 7 other starting first basemen to challenge him for the honor?

Hodges was a member of great teams, but never the best or brightest member on it.

Hodges produced at an all-star level for 9 seasons and at a "starting" level (10-19 win shares) for another 3. Whoopee....

Ed Yost had 7 such "all-star" seasons and 7 more "starting" seasons as a third baseman in the same league and era. Yost also had a higher peak, yet is never thought of as a Hall of Fame ballplayer.

What's the difference? I suppose if Yost had been fortunate enough to play in Brooklyn during the 1950s, then he'd already have been enshrined.

Hodges' career is too comparable to contemporaries like Ted Kluszewski and Joe Adcock, yet alone the many other similar first basemen both before and after - Hal Trosky, Norm Cash, Boog Powell. There's nothing to separate him from the pack here except for his managerial tenure (which, added to his playing career doesn't magically turn him into a "great" player) or his association with Brooklyn (which, thanks to an incredibly large network of fan support, somehow does.)

[Brad Harris]

Hodges as a Defensive First Baseman

In Win Shares, Bill James assigns letter grades to the fielding of players with X number of innings in the field, at their position.

Gil Hodges received a solid "B"

Here is a list of all the "A" grade first basemen. (Remember, this is only rating their fielding production.)

Rico Brogna, Norm Cash, Gordy Coleman, Charlie Comiskey, Roger Connor, Glenn Davis, Dave Foutz, Jimmie Foxx, John Ganzel, Mark Grace, Hank Greenberg, Charlie Grimm, Keith Hernandez, Kent Hrbek, Frank Isbell, George Kelly, Ed Konetchy, Candy LaChance, Tino Martinez, Don Mattingly, Frank McCormick, George McQuinn, Dots Miller, Stan Musial, Dan O'Brien, John Olerud, Rafael Palmeiro, Wes Parker, Wally Pipp, Vic Power, George Stovall, Patsy Tebeau, Bill Terry, Eddie Waitkus, Perry Werden, Bill White, Carl Yastrzemski and Rudy York.

Now that's 38 first basemen and it doesn't even include the B+ crowd or the other B first basemen that are tied or only slightly better than Hodges in fielding production.

I guess what win shares is saying is that Hodges' fielding isn't even among the best guys ever at his position. While solidly above average, it's far from being a factor worthy of consideration in terms of his candidacy for the Hall of Fame.

I suppose, like everything else about the man, he's remembered as being better than he actually was thanks to the vast collection of literature on those teams and the nostalgic sentimentality of those who still remember seeing him play.

[Steffo]

You say that he was the best in the league, third best, second on his team, blah blah blah.....

Not everyone agrees with Win Shares!

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Steffo
Not everyone agrees with Win Shares!

No...not everyone does (and I don't expect them to.)

But at least win shares in an analytical, objective system of measuring his overall performance and putting it in context.

What's your method? We'll use that. I don't see anyone making a case for Hodges based on linear weights or any other comprehensive system of evaluation.

I have seen precious little analysis in support of Hodges here. Most of his supporters seem to rely more on the character argument or the "good player plus good manager equals great career" argument.

And while Cougar has put some numbers on the board for consideration, they're very broad numbers and not placed in a context. Heck...he said as much in one of his posts...we're talking about someone who played full-time for only a dozen seasons. That's Don Mattingly, Kirby Puckett, Tony Oliva territory.

Not one shred of statistical evidence has been shown to support the "he's one of the best defensive players at his position ever" theory

Little evidence has been shown that Hodges's production was enough, without the help of playing for the Dodgers in Ebbets Field much of the time.

Hodges hasn't been favorably compared to players who are in or should be in the Hall of Fame while being pointed out as distinct from those who aren't/don't.

You don't have to agree with win shares - though I'm curious what your beef is and what you'd do to make a better system. At least win shares is one form of measurement that has more credibility than "I remember when Hodges did this..." or "Pete Rose has twice the hits, but isn't half the man Hodges was,"

Where's Hodges best argument? Because I don't see it being made.

[Steffo]

I agree with Win Shares. i say the people whome you are trying to convince opposite might not....

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Steffo
I agree with Win Shares. i say the people whome you are trying to convince opposite might not....

I meant "your method" in the abstract sense, I suppose. Oops. :laugh Didn't mean to bite your head off. (Now where's that smilie?) :)


Here's some more "traditional" analysis:

Hodges has 370 HR and 1,274 RBI. There are 47 players with at least that many HR and RBI in their career. Among them, the following non-Hall of Famers:

Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Cal Ripken, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Fred McGriff, Ken Griffey Jr., Jose Canseco, Andre Dawson, Darrell Evans, Juan Gonzalez, Joe Carter, Graig Nettles, Andres Galarraga, Dwight Evans, Harold Baines, Jim Rice, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas and, of course, Hodges himself.

So marks of 370/1274 are not necessarily Hall of Fame material. Many of those players named - for a variety of reasons - will not be elected. And remember this list is comprised making Hodges' numbers the baseline, not the average! Hodges numbers, in this respect, are inferior to each and every one of those players.

Hodges played in a hitters' era in a hitters' park and, therefore, can't really benefit from any park factor or era analysis either.



By the way, did you know that, were Hodges elected, only two Hall of Fame first basemen would have fewer career hits? Frank Chance (who was elected, in part, based on his managerial career not to mention his association with those other two fellas) and Hank Greenberg.



Here's a list of non-Hall of Famers with more career total bases than Gil Hodges:

Pete Rose, Cal Ripken, Barry Bonds, Paul Molitor, Andre Dawson, Rafael Palmeiro, Harold Baines, Rickey Henderson, Dave Parker, Fred McGriff, Vada Pinson, Tony Gwynn, Dwight Evans, Rusty Staub, Jim Rice, Al Oliver, Wade Boggs, Steve Garvey, Chili Davis, Joe Carter, Andres Galarraga, Ken Griffey Jr., Gary Gaetti, Darrell Evans, Sammy Sosa, Bill Buckner, Ted Simmons, Ryne Sandberg, Graig Nettles, Ron Santo, Willie Davis, Roberto Alomar, Tim Raines, Mickey Vernon, Dale Murphy, Buddy Bell, Lou Whitaker, Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Jimmy Ryan, Ellis Burks, Jeff Bagwell, Don Baylor, Will Clark, Joe Torre, Mark Grace, Bob Johnson, Lee May, Lave Cross, Craig Biggio, Bill Dahlen, Frank Thomas, Ken Boyer, Alan Trammell, Paul O'Neill, Reggie Smith, Juan Gonzalez, Doc Cramer, Cecil Cooper and Del Ennis.

*sigh*

Can you see where this is going?


I thought....Hodges has a case on his HR and walks (for his era) so I did a quick comparison of OPS and adjusted it to league averages. (Park factors, which do not favor Hodges, were not accounted for here.) Here's the results...

For players with 8,000+ plate appearances:

Hodges is tied with the 72nd best OPS+; tied with guys like Wade Boggs, Ken Singleton and Bob Elliott. Their OPS+ is 116 (or, 16% better than league average.)

The 19 non-Hall of Famers who were better:

Barry Bonds (141)
Reggie Smith (125)
"Indian" Bob Johnson (123)
Sherry Magee (122)
Jack Clark (122)
Fred McGriff (121)
Will Clark (120)
Ron Santo (120)
Rafael Palmeiro (120)
Tony Gwynn (119)
Joe Torre (118)
Jim Rice (118)
Bobby Bonds (118)
Keith Hernandez (117)
Dale Murphy (117)
Andres Galarraga (117)
Jimmy Wynn (117)
Dwight Evans (117)
Jimmy Ryan (117)



Hodges put up some fair numbers, but I don't see how they rate as Hall-worthy. Conceding intangibles like "character" and "leadership," it's still not enough to bridge the gap between being a very good player and being a great one.

[Steffo]

Of course, it might be helpful to knock off all active or non-eligible players from those lists...

[Cougar]

Defensive win shares for a 1b are imperfect. 1b defense is notoriously hard to measure. Consider the lengths to which James went (properly, I think) to compare the defense of Garvey and Buckner.

Win shares says that Hodges was a B and Glenn Davis is an A. Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test. I didn't see Hodges play, but I saw Davis, and I saw Keith Hernandez, and they certainly ought not get the same grade.

Honestly, in this case I think reputation is a better measure than win shares for Hodges's defense.

[Steffo]

Just a quick Q, what rating does Maurice Vaughn get?

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Steffo
Just a quick Q, what rating does Maurice Vaughn get?

Probably a "R".

[Steffo]

The reason I wonder is if he gets any better than a "D" then defensive win shares aren't all that reliable.

[Cougar]

Good point!

[Cougar]

Chancellor is putting the most negative spin possible on Hodges' qualifications. Let me paraphrase some of his posts:

Yes he only played full time 12 years -- but he played part time in 6 others, including 3 with pretty sizable part time contributions. That's not a short career -- it's not extremely long, but it's a typical length for a very good player.

Of his standing among NL first basemen -- he was in the top 3 for 10 straight years, in the top 2 for 6 straight, and the best for 4 season. You could probably say something similar about Eddie Murray (although Hodges lacked Murray's longevity -- and the DH). That's spectacular consistency. Besides, who was he finishing behind? Stan Musial? Well, not being as good as Musial doesn't keep you out of the Hall.

Of his standing on Brooklyn teams -- that was a historically great team. And again, he was always among the top contributors -- consistency again.

During his peak, he was among the very best players in the league. And this league had Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Eddie Mathews, Stan Musial...not to mention his teammates.

Of his contemporaries, he was more durable than Klu and more spectacular than Adcock. While he was not always the best first baseman in any given year, he was clearly the best of his era overall.

All the Brooklyn jibes -- does he get a boost as a New York guy? Probably. But if it shouldn't work for him, it shouldn't work against him either. We shouldn't penalize Hodges to make up for Phil Rizzuto and Highpockets Kelly.

Ebbets Field -- did it help? Yeah, probably. But it doesn't invalidate all he did. Would his case be appreciably different if he hit 350 HR instead of 370? No.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Chancellor
No...not everyone does (and I don't expect them to.)

But at least win shares in an analytical, objective system of measuring his overall performance and putting it in context.

What's your method? We'll use that. I don't see anyone making a case for Hodges based on linear weights or any other comprehensive system of evaluation.


Chancellor, let me answer that question with a question. Consider Cy Young when he was a child pitching on the sandlots of Ohio. I want to know who was the very first player ever in amateur play that Cy Young ever struck out? Anyone have an answer? Anyone? I say it was Babe Ruth. Does anyone have a better answer? Sure Babe may not have been born until after Cy Young was already in the Major Leagues, but I haven't seen a better answer. If anyone offers me a better answer, then we'll go with that. Until then, Babe Ruth is correct.

My point is that just because someone has a flawed answer or a flawed system and no one has proposed a better one doesn't make the initial offering correct. That's the case with a lot of James' systems.

Are we really to believe that Gil Hodges was an inferior fielder to Rico Brogna and Kent Hrbek simply becasue Bill James tells us it is so? Please people, I beg of you, do some research, do some contemplation on your own.

As for Hodges' average numbers not being as comparable, I'd say compare him to McCovey. In that case his baseline totals don't compare, but on a season by season average they are quite similar. For the average 162 game season here is how they compare:

Hodges- 86 runs 29 HR 100 RBI .273 BA
McCovey- 77 runs 33 HR 97 RBI .270 BA
(All stats derived from the Bill James Encyclopedia)

Of course, McCovey's totals are more impressive over the long run being that he continued that average for 3.19 more years than Hodges. However, when taking into consideration Hodges career totals, let's look at where he stood at the time he retired. By the end of 1962, he was 10th place on the all-time homerun list. It's easy to forget in today's homer happy era that when Hodges played, 370 was still a huge career total. Only Jimmie Foxx had hit more as a right handed batter in the history of baseball up until that point.

How did he compare to his contemporaries? Whenever one names the top players of the 1950s is it truly possible to compile a list without Hodges' name being mentioned? Not if they know what they are talking about, Willis. For the decade he finished with more RBI and homeruns than anyone other Duke Snider. Are we so sure he could have really been that readily replaced in the Dodgers' lineup by Kluszewski or Adcock (Both of whom by the way let's remember were excellent ballplayers in their own right) with the same results?

Chancellor, you compiled several lists comparing him to non-Hall of Famers who have amassed better career totals, yet each list is full of several future Hall of Famers. It's not a fair argument to say that Barry Bonds has better career totals and is not in the Hall of Fame and so therefore Hodges shouldn't be. Bonds obviously will eventually be in. As will Mark McGwire, who's 1626 career hits fall almost 300 short of Hodges' 1921 total. That's not to say Hodges deserves election due to that, but rather that McGwire will make four Hall of Fame first basemen with less career hits than Hodges has.

I also don't buy into the premise that Ozzie Smith has much more of a claim on being the greatest fielding shortstop ever than Hodges does of being the greatest fielding first baseman. Many an old Cardinal fan will still claim that Ozzie wasn't even the greatest fielding shortstop in that franchise's history, let alone ML history. The difference is that we were all raised on a steady diet of Ozzie Smith highlight reels and commercial endorsements. Marty Marion and Rabbit Maranville, for example, never had those same opportunities. It's the same as when I see peole proclaim Michael Jordan as hands down "the greatest basketball player ever". I can almost guarantee that those same people never saw Wilt Chamberlain or Oscar Robertson play. This ESPN age we live in often times distorts our perceptions of history. Ponder this for a moment, had the Gold Glove Award been available from the start of Hodges' career, how differently might we perceive him as a fielder? Right now he only has a paltry three Gold Gloves listed by his name. How many could he have won? Would that make a difference perception wise?

Back to batting, I also happen to be a big believer that Santo deserves enshrinement in Cooperstown. However, let's compare his average season to Hodges':

Hodges- 86 runs 29 HR 100 RBI .273 BA
Santo- 82 runs, 25 HR, 96 RBI, .277 BA

They seem rather close to me. Now I can understand the arguments in Santo's favor if directly comparing the two. The league battting average was a whopping .005 higher during Hodges' tenure. Santo also played a different position on the field. Yet are those two factors when adjusted to account for those differences so overwhelmingly in favor of Santo? They must be somehow. How else can we account for the fact that Santos is considered to be such a glaring, if not THE glaring, oversight on behalf of the Hall of Fame and yet Hodges doesn't even enter the Hall radar in the minds of those same people?

[Brad Harris]

You make an excellent point about Hodges place in history at the time of his retirement.

One retort, however, in regards to McCovey/Santo and Hodges.

McCovey and Santo both played in the worst hitters' era in modern baseball history while Hodges played in a hitter-friendly era.

McCovey, furthermore, played in a pitcher's park (Candlestick) while Hodges played in a hitter's park (Ebbets). [Of course Santo doesn't have to same advantage, having played at Wrigley all those years.]

I equate Hodges as just a shred better than Tony Perez, but with not so long a career. Perez could easily have been replaced in the lineup of the Big Red Machine and Bill Madlock, Steve Garvey or several others could have wound up with those RBI totals. Likewise, I believe that Kluszewski (blessed with good health) or Adcock (blessed with a full-time position) could have done just as good, if not better, than Hodges. I'm more inclined to believe that about Kluszewski than Adcock, however.

There's one thing that everyone does seem to be missing and that's the fact that Hodges had his 15 years on the ballot and the baseball writers who had seen him play didn't think he was good enough for the Hall of Fame! If he was so obviously among the best players of his era, then how is it that 3/4ths of the voters could never agree with that assessment?

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Chancellor
There's one thing that everyone does seem to be missing and that's the fact that Hodges had his 15 years on the ballot and the baseball writers who had seen him play didn't think he was good enough for the Hall of Fame! If he was so obviously among the best players of his era, then how is it that 3/4ths of the voters could never agree with that assessment?

The same exact way they could never agree with that assessment regarding Santo.

[Cougar]

The BBWAA tends to make the same kind of mistakes on the same type of players.

Santo and Hodges have somewhat similar qualifications, statistics, etc.

I'm not inclined to argue the fine points here, but they have rather similar career lines, no MVP, rarely or never the best player on his team, more consistent than flashy, careers ended somewhat abruptly, no big milestones, rather ordinary BA, excellent all-around players but not necessarily the greatest at any one obvious thing, superb fielders, etc.

With these similar traits, it's not surprising the BBWAA missed them both. There's just a bloc of voters in the BBWAA that's larger than 25% that doesn't recognize players of this type (others include Grich, both Evans's, Nettles, Boyer, Simmons, Whitaker, and now maybe Sandberg) as HOF caliber.

And they're just wrong!

[JACKIE42]

We Brooklyn Dodger fans think with our hearts not with our heads. If i had my way not only would Gil be in the HOF but so would Carl Furillo, Billy Cox, Preacher Roe, oh hell lets just put the whole 1955 team in and then we Brooklyn nuts will be happy.

[Brad Harris]

Cougar:

You're right about the BBWAA, but there are - again - three very big differences between Hodges and Santo, all of which give Santo an edge.

(1) Santo played in the 1960s while Hodges played in the 1950s. The BBWAA has done a tremendous job, over the years of ignoring the context in which a hitter played. If Curt Flood had played in the 1930s, there's little doubt he'd be in, while a guy like Earl Averill probably wouldn't be given a second thought if he'd played in the '60s. Hodges had the benefit of a hitters' era while Santo did not. Ergo, Santo's numbers are more impressive given the context.

(2) Santo played third base while Hodges played first. Empirical evidence exists which demonstrates that third base is of greater importance, defensively, than first base is. A good glove at third is more valuable than a good glove at first. Hence, Santo's defensive contributions are of greater worth to his teams.

(3) Hodges was more easily replaceable than Santo. How many first basemen have been able to hit like that? A fair number of them. How many have been able to hit - to a large extent - like that? A great many more. On the other hand, Santo's batting skills are among the most elite ever seen by a third baseman and, in his day, would have been extremely difficult to replace. I guess what this boils down to is the margin of difference between Hodges and an average first baseman of his era is much less than the difference between Santo and the average third baseman of his time. Scarcity is an essential indicator of value. Hence, again, Santo comes out on top.

I think there's one other difference in terms of their current support for the Hall of Fame. Santo's support has been built over time while Hodges has waned over time. This tells me that people who watched Hodges thought of his as deserving, but that statistical analysis hasn't been able to replicate the same degree of support, as fewer and fewer people remember him. Santo, on the other hand, has gained acceptance by fans on account of statistical analysis shedding "new light" on the real value of his accomplishments.

Based on their voting patterns, it seems to me that the New York writers were able to garner a large amount of support for Hodges, but as time passed, other BBWAA members tended to lose interest in supporting just another member of another great NY team. Santo, on the other hand, enjoyed the support of Chicago writers - a solid, but less influential bloc - and is only the "darling" of Veterans Committee watchers because his contributions loom large in the absence of more 1960s players/third basemen? Then there's always the sympathy factor for the living Santo (while Hodges has been dead almost thirty years.)

I can't pretend to explain why neither was elected. Both were great players at one point. And I'm not as against Hodges candidacy as I probably sound based on these posts. It's simply that Hodges rates lower than a slew of other candidates on my ballots and I try to promote candidates who's election would raise the standards of the Hall rather than merely maintain them (much less lower them.)

On a board where people have serious problems with the candidacies of guys like Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas or Rafael Palmeiro, I fail to see how Hodges is such a popular candidate.

As for all the players you mentioned - Grich, Nettles, Boyer, etc. - I'd like to point out "which is these things doesn't belong here": Ted Simmons, who was never a great defensive player, as the rest all were. (Though I support his election to the Hall.)

Finally - phew - JACKIE42: Your hearts are what would give Brooklyn fans a place in a "Baseball Fans Hall of Fame"! We need more fans - all over the place - like you!

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Cougar:

You're right about the BBWAA, but there are - again - three very big differences between Hodges and Santo, all of which give Santo an edge.

(1) Santo played in the 1960s while Hodges played in the 1950s. The BBWAA has done a tremendous job, over the years of ignoring the context in which a hitter played. If Curt Flood had played in the 1930s, there's little doubt he'd be in, while a guy like Earl Averill probably wouldn't be given a second thought if he'd played in the '60s. Hodges had the benefit of a hitters' era while Santo did not. Ergo, Santo's numbers are more impressive given the context.

This is true, although you oversell it a bit...the 50's were not the 30's -- it was pretty neutral.

Originally posted by Chancellor
(2) Santo played third base while Hodges played first. Empirical evidence exists which demonstrates that third base is of greater importance, defensively, than first base is. A good glove at third is more valuable than a good glove at first. Hence, Santo's defensive contributions are of greater worth to his teams.

(3) Hodges was more easily replaceable than Santo. How many first basemen have been able to hit like that? A fair number of them. How many have been able to hit - to a large extent - like that? A great many more. On the other hand, Santo's batting skills are among the most elite ever seen by a third baseman and, in his day, would have been extremely difficult to replace. I guess what this boils down to is the margin of difference between Hodges and an average first baseman of his era is much less than the difference between Santo and the average third baseman of his time. Scarcity is an essential indicator of value. Hence, again, Santo comes out on top.

I think there's one other difference in terms of their current support for the Hall of Fame. Santo's support has been built over time while Hodges has waned over time. This tells me that people who watched Hodges thought of his as deserving, but that statistical analysis hasn't been able to replicate the same degree of support, as fewer and fewer people remember him. Santo, on the other hand, has gained acceptance by fans on account of statistical analysis shedding "new light" on the real value of his accomplishments.

I don't disagree with any of this, although I think these differences are more minor than you make them out to be. (The last difference could be purely generational...more people are living who saw Santo play, and Santo himself is living and an active broadcaster.) I agree that Santo is more deserving. Many people say Santo is the most deserving man not inducted; I think it's probably him or Minoso.

But...If Santo is the most deserving man not in the HOF, and Hodges' qualifications are fairly similar, to the point where you have to start looking at some real contextual stuff to draw a distinction, then isn't the other guy probably pretty deserving too.

We've commented before that Chancellor & I tend to agree on most things. Here we're only disagreeing on the question. Chance is saying Hodges isn't among the most deserving men not in the HOF. I'm ignoring who may be ahead of him or behind him and looking at Hodges by himself. I think he belongs. I think Santo belongs too, but if I were king for a day, I wouldn't have to choose between them, and I'd just induct them both (and a passel of other guys too).

Originally posted by Chancellor
Based on their voting patterns, it seems to me that the New York writers were able to garner a large amount of support for Hodges, but as time passed, other BBWAA members tended to lose interest in supporting just another member of another great NY team. Santo, on the other hand, enjoyed the support of Chicago writers - a solid, but less influential bloc - and is only the "darling" of Veterans Committee watchers because his contributions loom large in the absence of more 1960s players/third basemen? Then there's always the sympathy factor for the living Santo (while Hodges has been dead almost thirty years.)

I can't pretend to explain why neither was elected. Both were great players at one point. And I'm not as against Hodges candidacy as I probably sound based on these posts. It's simply that Hodges rates lower than a slew of other candidates on my ballots and I try to promote candidates whose election would raise the standards of the Hall rather than merely maintain them (much less lower them.)

This is sort of what I said before. Hodges probably wouldn't raise the standards much, but he sure wouldn't lower them.

Originally posted by Chancellor
On a board where people have serious problems with the candidacies of guys like Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas or Rafael Palmeiro, I fail to see how Hodges is such a popular candidate.

Not me! Those guys should be locks.

Originally posted by Chancellor
As for all the players you mentioned - Grich, Nettles, Boyer, etc. - I'd like to point out "which is these things doesn't belong here": Ted Simmons, who was never a great defensive player, as the rest all were. (Though I support his election to the Hall.)

Right, of course...that was careless. Simmons' case is based on offense from the catcher position, not his defense behind the plate. I think I was just trying to throw a catcher in there,

Originally posted by Chancellor
Finally - phew - JACKIE42: Your hearts are what would give Brooklyn fans a place in a "Baseball Fans Hall of Fame"! We need more fans - all over the place - like you!

Ditto.

[EFlatbushBill]

I always thought Gil Hodges was the greatest, esp. for a 12 year old boy watching a graceful, elegant man round third base and throw a kiss to his wife, after he'd hit a four-bagger. I liked his quiet strength, and he became a model of power as well as of dignity - things I treasure in people, to this day.
Does anyone know where Gil lived? I imagine he lived in E. Flatbush, near where I grew up, but I don't know how to find out about this. I'm interested in hearing your memories of Gil and the team.

[iPod]

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

[iPod]

However, when taking into consideration Hodges career totals, let's look at where he stood at the time he retired. By the end of 1962, he was 10th place on the all-time homerun list. It's easy to forget in today's homer happy era that when Hodges played, 370 was still a huge career total. Only Jimmie Foxx had hit more as a right handed batter in the history of baseball up until that point.


And he was passed over many times very quickly on that list. He's only 60th all-time now. Home runs were impossible to hit in any good number before 1920, and many great hitters after 1920 spent good portions of their careers in the deadball era. I believe home runs were hit more often, per at-bat, during the 1950s than ever before.

[Goofy]

In concert, Hodges' playing and managing achievements definitely deserve a plaque.



I agree he was only marginal. around .990 as a fielder at 1b and he did steal the 69 series from Baltimore.:grouchy :grouchy

[Brownie31]

Gil Hodges certainly belongs in the Hall of Fame. He most assuredly has more business in the HOF than Bruce Sutter! Brownie31

[The Commissioner]

And he was passed over many times very quickly on that list. He's only 60th all-time now. Home runs were impossible to hit in any good number before 1920, and many great hitters after 1920 spent good portions of their careers in the deadball era. I believe home runs were hit more often, per at-bat, during the 1950s than ever before.

I'd say that 40+ years after he retired, 60th all-time is still pretty darn impressive.

[kramer_47]

I'd say that 40+ years after he retired, 60th all-time is still pretty darn impressive.

How right you are Commissioner, And he put those stats after missing 2 1/2 years as a war hero with the Marines. Can you imagine what his already good stats would look like adding 2 more years.

[iPod]

I'd say that 40+ years after he retired, 60th all-time is still pretty darn impressive.

Not when that's basically all you have to offer.

Are we just going to go through all this every couple of weeks or something?

[kramer_47]

Not when that's basically all you have to offer.

Are we just going to go through all this every couple of weeks or something?

If only you were 60 years old and got to see the Brooklyn Dodgers play maybe you wouldn't say some of the things you say. As a 20 year old all you have is stats, and the new Bill James way of doing things. This is a forum if someone new wants to go into something that has been visited before so be it.

[The Commissioner]

Not when that's basically all you have to offer.


...All you have to offer if you discount his runs batted in, the pennants, quite possibly being the greatest fielding first baseman ever, etc.

[kramer_47]

In 1992 Gil Hodges would have been elected to the HOF by the veterans committee but Roy Campanella's was sick and he phoned in his vote and it was not allowed. Today the veterans committee mails or emails there vote in, I don't think there is an actual meeting every 2 years. Then 2 years later in 1994 they saw fit to elect Leo Durocher even though he was suspended while managing for gambling and hanging with the wrong characters.

[RuthMayBond]

...quite possibly being the greatest fielding first baseman ever, etc.Who are we talking about here?

[The Commissioner]

Who are we talking about here?


Gil, he has to be ranked amongst the best. I know someone will produce a sabermeteric chart showing him as "the 32nd overall ranked 1st baseman based on defensive winshares multiplied by pi to the seventh power", however, most sane and/or rationale fans would probably place him at or near the top.

[RuthMayBond]

Gil, he has to be ranked amongst the best. I know someone will produce a sabermeteric chart showing him as "the 32nd overall ranked 1st baseman based on defensive winshares multiplied by pi to the seventh power", however, most sane and/or rationale fans would probably place him at or near the top.Ah, so anyone who would dare to use sabermetrics is neither sane nor rational. Thanks for clearing that up :laugh :laugh

[RuthMayBond]

quite possibly being the greatest fielding first baseman ever, etc.OK, I wasn't there, so why don't Hodges supporters tell us what kind of fielding competition Hodges was up against back in the day

[kramer_47]

OK, I wasn't there, so why don't Hodges supporters tell us what kind of fielding competition Hodges was up against back in the day

There were other good 1st baseman in the late 1940's and 1950's like Vic Power, Ted Kluzewski, Ed Waitkus to name a few. Gil Hodges came in on a bunt like a righthanded Keith Hernandez to make the play at 3rd, 2nd or 1st, he had great range so Robby could always cheap more towards second base. Gil was absolutely the best coming off the base on a throw from one of his fielders to get an out or a double play, he got the call almost every time on close plays. He knew how to play 1st base, he knew where to be at all times, he saved the Dodgers pitchers many runs with his glove and actions around the bag. That's why he won the first 3 gold gloves, in 1957 for the major leagues 1958-59 for the National league, he most likely could have won 8 more if they gave out the award. He was an 8 time all star at 1st base starting in 1949.

[RuthMayBond]

There were other good 1st baseman in the late 1940's and 1950's like Vic Power, Ted Kluzewski, Ed Waitkus to name a few. Gil Hodges came in on a bunt like a righthanded Keith Hernandez to make the play at 3rd, 2nd or 1st, he had great range so Robby could always cheap more towards second base. Gil was absolutely the best coming off the base on a throw from one of his fielders to get an out or a double play, he got the call almost every time on close plays. He knew how to play 1st base, he knew where to be at all times, he saved the Dodgers pitchers many runs with his glove and actions around the bag. That's why he won the first 3 gold gloves, in 1957 for the major leagues 1958-59 for the National league, he most likely could have won 8 more if they gave out the award. He was an 8 time all star at 1st base starting in 1949.He walked on water, raised the dead . . . And yeah, Power played a lot in the 40s (not even in the National League). What was so great about Waitkus, he only had about five full years? I've been rating Hodges as high as I have defensively (with my poor system) ONLY because it appeared he would have won a few Gold Gloves, but I don't think he had much competition.

[kramer_47]

He walked on water, raised the dead . . . And yeah, Power played a lot in the 40s (not even in the National League). What was so great about Waitkus, he only had about five full years? I've been rating Hodges as high as I have defensively (with my poor system) ONLY because it appeared he would have won a few Gold Gloves, but I don't think he had much competition.

Thank you I forgot to mention he walked on water and even raised the dead. Waitkus was shot in 1949 by a crazy woman and missed alot of time but he was a good 1st baseman. There was competition at 1st base in both leagues, and Gil was the best as you can see by him making 8 all star teams.

[RuthMayBond]

Thank you I forgot to mention he walked on water and even raised the dead. Waitkus was shot in 1949 by a crazy woman and missed alot of time but he was a good 1st baseman. There was competition at 1st base in both leagues, and Gil was the best as you can see by him making 8 all star teams.I'm referring to competition in his league DEFENSIVELY. Frank Thomas has made All-Star teams :laugh

[The Commissioner]

Ah, so anyone who would dare to use sabermetrics is neither sane nor rational. Thanks for clearing that up :laugh :laugh

That's not what I said, nor does it remotely approach what I said . Sabermetrics, as with most things in life, is not an "either/or" issue. I was (and I really shouldn't have to be explaining this) simply attempting to convey that for virtually every fact, there is some sabermetric combination which can be used to discount it. I've seen several of these applied to Hodges already in past discussions. Sabermetrics, like most other means of comparison, are fallible. I just find it ludicrous when we attempt to specifically quantify something as abstract as a player's fielding prowess from 50 years ago into linear data that we insist is completely measurable. There is always going to be someone claiming that they can "prove", hypothetically here for example, that "Gil Hodges ranks #32 in fielding, while Keith Hernandez was #30". How? How can you reasonably measure this across generations?

[The Commissioner]

He walked on water, raised the dead . . .

Leading the Mets to a World Series title is fairly close.

[RuthMayBond]

I was (and I really shouldn't have to be explaining this) simply attempting to convey that for virtually every fact, there is some sabermetric combination which can be used to discount it."Facts" as decided by whom? (Why don't you give us multiple examples of "facts" and sabermetric discounting?)

<I just find it ludicrous when we attempt to specifically quantify something as abstract as a player's fielding prowess from 50 years ago into linear data that we insist is completely measurable. There is always going to be someone claiming that they can "prove", hypothetically here for example, that "Gil Hodges ranks #32 in fielding, while Keith Hernandez was #30". How? How can you reasonably measure this across generations?>

You mean like eyewitnesses making completely objective comparisons across generations? :laugh

[RuthMayBond]

Leading the Mets to a World Series title is fairly close.They did have a year when a lot of the players' talent peaked, but they didn't do so well the next year (and did all right in '73 without Hodges)

[Tigerfan1974]

Instead of playing games with Pete Rose, Bud Selig should be pushing for Gil Hodges. What a great player and an even greater human being. Gil was one of the best fielding first basemen ever, outstanding hitter and a general credit to the game. It would only be fair that Gil join Jackie, Pee Wee, Duke and Campy in Cooperstown. Pete Rose? No matter how many hits you had, you never will be a Gil Hodges. If Rose gets in, Bart Giamatti will be rolling in his grave!

Duke of URL! Cute!

I agree, as I have said in other threads, Gil should probably be there.

[The Commissioner]

You mean like eyewitnesses making completely objective comparisons across generations? :laugh

Am I typing in Esperanto here? I, nor anyone who is all that bright, would ever attempt to specifically quantify players by claiming to have made a completely objective and fair comparison across generations. We can say "Hodges was one of the best ever" or that "Hodges may have been the best ever" or has "fair claim at the best ever", but you will rarely hear someone say definitively "here is how they absolutely rank in descending order from 1880-2006" unless they are under the influence of sabermetrics. Such rankings are meaningless, fabricated, and more often than not, highly distorted.

[RuthMayBond]

I, nor anyone who is all that bright, would ever attempt to specifically quantify players by claiming to have made a completely objective and fair comparison across generations. We can say "Hodges was one of the best ever" or that "Hodges may have been the best ever" or has "fair claim at the best ever", but you will rarely hear someone say definitively "here is how they absolutely rank in descending order from 1880-2006" unless they are under the influence of sabermetrics. Such rankings are meaningless, fabricated, and more often than not, highly distorted.Burgess has been making ordered lists and he's not into sabermetrics, I doubt he's the only :waving How many sabermetricians have you heard say this is how guys absolutely rank? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[The Commissioner]

How many sabermetricians have you heard say this is how guys absolutely rank? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

A lot... Way too many ...another one coming out of the woodwork every day. Look, anyone who claims to "know" with any degree of certitude how players from 1898 rank against players from 1968 is delusional regardless of what means of measurement they rely upon.

[RuthMayBond]

A lot... Way too many ...another one coming out of the woodwork every day.That's a, uh, LOT of examples.

<Look, anyone who claims to "know" with any degree of certitude how players from 1898 rank against players from 1968 is delusional regardless of what means of measurement they rely upon.>

Would it be delusional to have any certitude in saying that Willie Mays was better than, say, George Bristow, or are you saying the league in general?

[The Commissioner]

That's a, uh, LOT of examples.

There is no reason to adopt a sardonic tone. Why should I spend the time going back over past posts, retrieving examples, and bringing them to your attention only to have them summarily dismissed with pompous contempt. Sorry, but it's not worth the work.


Would it be delusional to have any certitude in saying that Willie Mays was better than, say, George Bristow, or are you saying the league in general?

Where is this "all or nothing", "black and white", "right or wrong" thinking coming from? Of course it could be said that Mays was a better fielder than Bristow. However when people attempt to definitely rank and quantify Mays, Speaker, Griffey, A. Jones, and Joe DiMaggio, that's where I have problems. They are all amongst the games elite at fielding their positions. Anyone claiming to have statistical proof which undeniably gives Jones the edge over Speaker is probably either delusional or stupid.

[RuthMayBond]

Anyone claiming to have statistical proof which undeniably gives Jones the edge over Speaker is probably either delusional or stupid.No sabermetrician has any more statistical proof than any eyewitness guy. But at least sabermetricians have some things that can be verified, compared with the norm in a more objective way, doesn't fade as much with time. And how do you know JDimaggio was among the defensive elite?

[The Commissioner]

No sabermetrician has any more statistical proof than any eyewitness guy. But at least sabermetricians have some things that can be verified, compared with the norm in a more objective way, doesn't fade as much with time.

The fact that they are seen as being purely objective is exactly the dangerous thing about them. It's like taking a tainted math formula and saying that it means something.

For example, let's take on base percentage and add to that batting average, then add slugging percentage. We will then subtract the DP loss factor (the number of times that a player has grounded into a double play multiplied by 1/1000) This new formula shall be called "OPBASDP". Henceforth this shall be seen as the definitive way to determine who the greatest hitters in the history of baseball were. As the OPBASDP clearly shows, Willie Mays with his OPBASDP factor of .992 was obviously a much better ballplayer than Hank Aaron, since he only had an OPBASDP of .906. These results are completely quantifiable. They are using objective numbers. They are comparable. They are verifiable. However, the result is pure nonsense. I'm willing to bet, though that if Bill James gave a detailed explanation of why each of these numbers mattered so much in the formula and should be regarded that highly, there would be a lot of you swallowing the Kool Aid.


And how do you know JDimaggio was among the defensive elite?

I don't, not any more than I know Tris Speaker or Gil Hodges were among the defensive elite.

[kramer_47]

No sabermetrician has any more statistical proof than any eyewitness guy. But at least sabermetricians have some things that can be verified, compared with the norm in a more objective way, doesn't fade as much with time. And how do you know JDimaggio was among the defensive elite?

You young guys just depend too much on the new super stats to listen to the oldtimers view on what they saw, you guys just ignore us. I love to listen to people older then me and hear their stories about the old times before I was born. Stats are good but they don't tell the whole story.

[leecemark]

--Kramer, weren't you just a child when you saw Hodges play? I wouldn't give great weight to a 10 year old's evaluation of a player today. Why would your memory of something you saw 50 years ago as a 10 year old overrule any other evidence?

[kramer_47]

--Kramer, weren't you just a child when you saw Hodges play? I wouldn't give great weight to a 10 year old's evaluation of a player today. Why would your memory of something you saw 50 years ago as a 10 year old overrule any other evidence?

You mean to tell me you don't remember things before you were 10 years old, most people can remember things in there life from 5-6 years old. I do have a very good memory, what is the difference if i was 7 or 47.

[leecemark]

--Sure I remember things from before I was 10. My opinion on the greatness of a player I saw at that age isn't going to be as informed or valuable as one I develop as a grown man with more perspective though. I think it would also be very difficult not to have biased memories of a childhood favorite - a player who I actually met as a kid.

[RuthMayBond]

The fact that they are seen as being purely objective is exactly the dangerous thing about them. It's like taking a tainted math formula and saying that it means something.

For example, let's take on base percentage and add to that batting average, then add slugging percentage. We will then subtract the DP loss factor (the number of times that a player has grounded into a double play multiplied by 1/1000) This new formula shall be called "OPBASDP". Henceforth this shall be seen as the definitive way to determine who the greatest hitters in the history of baseball were. As the OPBASDP clearly shows, Willie Mays with his OPBASDP factor of .992 was obviously a much better ballplayer than Hank Aaron, since he only had an OPBASDP of .906. These results are completely quantifiable. They are using objective numbers. They are comparable. They are verifiable. However, the result is pure nonsense. I'm willing to bet, though that if Bill James gave a detailed explanation of why each of these numbers mattered so much in the formula and should be regarded that highly, there would be a lot of you swallowing the Kool Aid.Any opportunity to bash stats

<I don't, not any more than I know Tris Speaker or Gil Hodges were among the defensive elite.>

Now we're getting somewhere but, interesting, you said JDimaggio was among the defensive elite.

[RuthMayBond]

You young guysLet me know how much I owe ya, kramer_47 :laugh

<just depend too much on the new super stats to listen to the oldtimers view on what they saw, you guys just ignore us. I love to listen to people older then me and hear their stories about the old times before I was born. Stats are good but they don't tell the whole story.>

Absolutely true, and I LOVE the stories :clapping

[kramer_47]

Let me know how much I owe ya, kramer_47 :laugh

<just depend too much on the new super stats to listen to the oldtimers view on what they saw, you guys just ignore us. I love to listen to people older then me and hear their stories about the old times before I was born. Stats are good but they don't tell the whole story.>

Absolutely true, and I LOVE the stories :clapping

Don't let it go to your head most people are younger then me, but you still owe me. If you are a baseball fan like you are you have to love to hear the stories of people older then you. There probably is some details that are left out or put in but most of that story is true and comes from an eyewitness.

[The Commissioner]

Any opportunity to bash stats

Not stats, just stats that pretend to be more than they are, or I should say, are incorrectly interpreted by people as being much more significant than they really are.

Now we're getting somewhere but, interesting, you said JDimaggio was among the defensive elite.

Wha???? Okay. I can't prove to you that DiMaggio was among the game's elite. In my opinion DiMaggio was among the elite, but I don't know that for a fact. I also can't prove to you that Mays was, nor that Speaker was. I don't know that they were either having never seen either one play. Are you just trying to have an argument for argument's sake at this point or are you really this much into semantics?

[abacab]

I try to see the case for Hodges but I just can't get past the list of his most similar players.

Norm Cash (932)
George Foster (921)
Tino Martinez (921)
Jack Clark (916)
Boog Powell (898)
Joe Adcock (895)
Lee May (894)
Rocky Colavito (893)
Willie Horton (888)
Roy Sievers (880)

If Norm Cash and Jack Clark aren't Hall of Famers, how can Hodges be?

[Cougar]

Hodges was better than Cash or Clark. Those similarity scores only compare career lines. Look season-by-season and you'll see that Hodges had more great years than Cash or Clark.

Also, similarity scores only look at offense, except for a positional adjustment. Hodges was a great fielder for most of his career; Cash and Clark were good (but not great) for a shorter portion of theirs. (Clark was more a RF than a 1b, of course.)

And then there's extra credit for managing, if one cares to grant that.

[kramer_47]

I try to see the case for Hodges but I just can't get past the list of his most similar players.

Norm Cash (932)
George Foster (921)
Tino Martinez (921)
Jack Clark (916)
Boog Powell (898)
Joe Adcock (895)
Lee May (894)
Rocky Colavito (893)
Willie Horton (888)
Roy Sievers (880)

If Norm Cash and Jack Clark aren't Hall of Famers, how can Hodges be?

None of these players even compare to Hodges, Gil was so much better then anyone on your list.

[kramer_47]

Hodges was better than Cash or Clark. Those similarity scores only compare career lines. Look season-by-season and you'll see that Hodges had more great years than Cash or Clark.

Also, similarity scores only look at offense, except for a positional adjustment. Hodges was a great fielder for most of his career; Cash and Clark were good (but not great) for a shorter portion of theirs. (Clark was more a RF than a 1b, of course.)

And then there's extra credit for managing, if one cares to grant that.

I think the extra credit should be for time missed in the military, just like Kirby Puckett was granted credit for career ending injury, give Gil back those 2 1/2 years and we aren't having this argument he'd already be in the HOF 25-30 years ago.

[jalbright]

I think the extra credit should be for time missed in the military, just like Kirby Puckett was granted credit for career ending injury, give Gil back those 2 1/2 years and we aren't having this argument he'd already be in the HOF 25-30 years ago.

In other discussions on this point, you've conceded that everyone develops differently. Pardon me if I insist on seeing this evidence before giving Hodges two or two and a half more career average Gil Hodges seasons rather than the same number of seasons, but at the level of Gil Hodges before 1949.

Jim albright

[leecemark]

--Norm Cash's best season was MUCH better than Hodges best (in fact his 2nd best OPS+ was also better than Hodges best). His raw numbers ended up less impressive (barely) than Hodges because the offensives levels in the 60s were much lower than the 60s AND Hodges was surrounded by one of the all time great teams, but if you look year by year Cash rates were better relative to league down the line. The similarity scores are unfair, but it is Cash who gets shortchanged not Hodges.
--While Cash was a very good fielder, I'll allow that Hodges was better. The difference between two firstbasemen defensively isn't going to amount to too much unless one of them is abysmal though. Hodges does the advantage in in season durability. Cash suffered minor injuries in most seasons and sometimes sat vs LHP so he didn't get into as many games. He makes up for that by being a good player through age 38, while Hodges ran out of gas at 35.. They ended up with basically the same number of plate appearances. ---Hodges is the better Hall of Fame candidate because he was on one of the most famous teams of all time (and one that gets endlessly romanticized due to it being the last generation of Brooklyn Dodgers - I suspect his candidacy would have dried up long ago if the Dodgers hadn't moved). He also got a fame boost by managing another New York team to a title. If you are simply judging them by merit though, I think Cash was the better player.

[Cougar]

--Norm Cash's best season was MUCH better than Hodges best (in fact his 2nd best OPS+ was also better than Hodges best). His raw numbers ended up less impressive (barely) than Hodges because the offensives levels in the 60s were much lower than the 60s AND Hodges was surrounded by one of the all time great teams, but if you look year by year Cash rates were better relative to league down the line. The similarity scores are unfair, but it is Cash who gets shortchanged not Hodges.
--While Cash was a very good fielder, I'll allow that Hodges was better. The difference between two firstbasemen defensively isn't going to amount to too much unless one of them is abysmal though. Hodges does the advantage in in season durability. Cash suffered minor injuries in most seasons and sometimes sat vs LHP so he didn't get into as many games. He makes up for that by being a good player through age 38, while Hodges ran out of gas at 35.. They ended up with basically the same number of plate appearances. ---Hodges is the better Hall of Fame candidate because he was on one of the most famous teams of all time (and one that gets endlessly romanticized due to it being the last generation of Brooklyn Dodgers - I suspect his candidacy would have dried up long ago if the Dodgers hadn't moved). He also got a fame boost by managing another New York team to a title. If you are simply judging them by merit though, I think Cash was the better player.

Cash's 1961 being the best season of any of the three is beyond dispute. I was going to mention something to that effect, but it seemed so obvious I didn't bother.

But Cash's 1961 was such an enormous fluke...I mean, you don't throw it out, but it's hard to know how to weight it. Does 1995 make Brady Anderson a great HR hitter? I don't know...I kinda doubt it.

The era effect also works in Cash's favor; stadium effect too, probably (Ebbets was a friendlier hitter's park than Tiger Stadium as a general rule). Cash was better than his raw numbers; I suppose the question is, how much does one adjust? Reasonable people can disagree.

[leecemark]

--Sure 1961 was a fluke season and not represenative of Cash's true talent level (if it was we'd be arguing about whether he's bettter than Gehrig instead of Hodges). However, his 2nd best OPS+ was also better than Hodges. His career OPS+ would still be higher even if you DID throw out 1961.

[barzilla]

He was a key component of the legendary Brooklyn Dodger teams of the 40's and 50's.


If that were true then why did he consistently finish behind at least three or four of his teammates every year in the MVP voting?

[OOSL]

--Sure 1961 was a fluke season and not represenative of Cash's true talent level (if it was we'd be arguing about whether he's bettter than Gehrig instead of Hodges). However, his 2nd best OPS+ was also better than Hodges. His career OPS+ would still be higher even if you DID throw out 1961.

Exactly.

If Gil Hodges played for the Indians or Kansas City A's, and not the Boys of Summer Dodgers, there wouldn't be this clamoring for him as a Hall of Fame contender.

He was a very good player, don't get me wrong, and I definitely see, and agree with, the added wartime credit argument. But he's not one of the best of the best of the best, which is what the hall "should" be about.

[Cougar]

--Sure 1961 was a fluke season and not represenative of Cash's true talent level (if it was we'd be arguing about whether he's bettter than Gehrig instead of Hodges). However, his 2nd best OPS+ was also better than Hodges. His career OPS+ would still be higher even if you DID throw out 1961.

In 1971 (his 2nd best OPS+), Cash played 135 games with an OPS+ of 150.

In 1952 (his best OPS+), Gil played 153 games with an OPS+ of 143.

That's at least a wash.

Furthermore, I'd contend that we can't just look at OPS+ here. If you look at Gil's prime, 1952 was arguably an off-year; his BA was way down, his slugging was lower than both the season before and after, etc.

OPS+ adjusts for the league OPS, but league OPS has some random variation just like individual performances do. League-wide offense was a little down in 1952, apparently, but I don't know an obvious reason why (I'd guess it was an unusually cold April or something, or maybe it was a mini-war year with some players going to Korea).

Cash and Hodges's comp score is 932. (In both directions.) That's an unusally high score for players with the kind of career length they had. So they've got a lot in common.

How do they differ:

1. Hodges was a better fielder.
2. Hodges had advantages in era (large) and home park (modest).
3. Cash had the best single season (in an expansion year)
4. Hodges' career was "bell-shaped", while Cash's was more up-and-down.
5. Reputational difference -- Hodges had 8 ASG, Cash 4.
6. Cash lasted longer, but Hodges played more games per season during his prime.
7. Post-career: Hodges managed the Miracle Mets; Cash confessed to using corked bats.

There's probably more, but this is a good start. From here, I think it almost boils down to aesthetics as to whom was the better player. To me it's Hodges.

[kramer_47]

If that were true then why did he consistently finish behind at least three or four of his teammates every year in the MVP voting?

Gil Hodges wasn't the media darling that Jackie, Campy, Peewee, Duke(Duke ran hot and cold with the media) were. Gil would come to the park play his game, shower and go home. Even though the media didn't dislike Gil he wasn't a quote machine like the others could be, he was quiet and reserved he didn't even want to talk much the day he hit 4 home runs. Even though he either led in homers or rbi or was second on team he never got the support even though he may have had the better year then the others.

[kramer_47]

Exactly.

If Gil Hodges played for the Indians or Kansas City A's, and not the Boys of Summer Dodgers, there wouldn't be this clamoring for him as a Hall of Fame contender.

He was a very good player, don't get me wrong, and I definitely see, and agree with, the added wartime credit argument. But he's not one of the best of the best of the best, which is what the hall "should" be about.

Alot of you guys are saying "IF" Gil played some where else, well he didn't and he was a big part of a great team. You guys say "IF" so and so was the 1st baseman of the Dodgers they would have done just as well, well Gil was the 1st baseman of those Dodgers teams while Klu and Adcock were losing in other places. Lets stop this IF stuff the fact is that Gil played for the Dodgers.
He was the best 1st baseman of his era, and with well deserved credit for his military time Gil would have been in the HOF years ago.

[RuthMayBond]

Alot of you guys are saying "IF" Gil played some where else, well he didn't and he was a big part of a great team. You guys say "IF" so and so was the 1st baseman of the Dodgers they would have done just as well, well Gil was the 1st baseman of those Dodgers teams while Klu and Adcock were losing in other places. Lets stop this IF stuff the fact is that Gil played for the Dodgers.And we all know that one person is completely responsible for a team's success :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[kramer_47]

And we all know that one person is completely responsible for a team's success :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No one ever said one person is responsible, it was a team effort, they just had more very good players then most teams had.

[stan opdyke]

In 1971 (his 2nd best OPS+), Cash played 135 games with an OPS+ of 150.

In 1952 (his best OPS+), Gil played 153 games with an OPS+ of 143.

That's at least a wash.

Furthermore, I'd contend that we can't just look at OPS+ here. If you look at Gil's prime, 1952 was arguably an off-year; his BA was way down, his slugging was lower than both the season before and after, etc.

OPS+ adjusts for the league OPS, but league OPS has some random variation just like individual performances do. League-wide offense was a little down in 1952, apparently, but I don't know an obvious reason why (I'd guess it was an unusually cold April or something, or maybe it was a mini-war year with some players going to Korea).

Cash and Hodges's comp score is 932. (In both directions.) That's an unusally high score for players with the kind of career length they had. So they've got a lot in common.

How do they differ:

1. Hodges was a better fielder.
2. Hodges had advantages in era (large) and home park (modest).
3. Cash had the best single season (in an expansion year)
4. Hodges' career was "bell-shaped", while Cash's was more up-and-down.
5. Reputational difference -- Hodges had 8 ASG, Cash 4.
6. Cash lasted longer, but Hodges played more games per season during his prime.
7. Post-career: Hodges managed the Miracle Mets; Cash confessed to using corked bats.

There's probably more, but this is a good start. From here, I think it almost boils down to aesthetics as to whom was the better player. To me it's Hodges.

I agree with what you are saying for the most part. However, Tiger Stadium was made for a left handed pull hitter like Cash. I never saw a game at Ebbets I am sorry to say, but I can't see how Ebbets would favor Hodges more than Tiger Stadium favored Cash. I suppose Gil hit some homeruns to center at Ebbets that would have been outs at Tiger Stadium, but I would wager that Cash hit some fly balls to right that would not have gone out at Ebbets if they had been pulled to left by Hodges. I have heard some former players mention that Tiger Stadium was the best ballpark to hit in in the American League.

With Jackie, Campy, and Furillo in the line-up with Gil and only Duke with power from the left side, the Dodgers did not face that much left handed pitching from what I have heard. The Tigers power was mostly right handed (Kaline, Horton, Freehan). Both Cash and Hodges were surrounded by some very good to great teammates. I think the Tigers line-up and Tiger Stadium itself helped Cash more than those factors helped Hodges.

[Cougar]

I didn't put much thought into the ballpark question -- just sort of used the CW that Ebbets was a hitter's haven and that Tiger Stadium was less so.

So I'm inclined to just defer to someone who has put thought into it. :clapping

[kramer_47]

I didn't put much thought into the ballpark question -- just sort of used the CW that Ebbets was a hitter's haven and that Tiger Stadium was less so.

So I'm inclined to just defer to someone who has put thought into it. :clapping

Tiger stadium had a nice short porch for a lefthanded hitter 325 to right field and Cash took advantage of it just like Duke Snider took advantage of the high short wall at Ebbets field which was 297. Duke like Norm were basically the only lefty in there lineups so they batted against mostly righthanded pitching with short right field fences. I know Sniders average and power was helped by the short wall in right, he peppered doubles and long singles against the wall and then popped a homer here and there over the high wall. I think Cash is more comparable to Snider then Hodges. In left at Ebbets it was 348 but who knows how long Gil's homers were plus he hit almost exclusively against righty pitching. So lets take all of this into consideration when you are rating Hodges against Cash.

[yanks0714]

I think the extra credit should be for time missed in the military, just like Kirby Puckett was granted credit for career ending injury, give Gil back those 2 1/2 years and we aren't having this argument he'd already be in the HOF 25-30 years ago.

No, I can't see giving Gil credit for the war years. Ted Williams, Bob Feller, Hank Greenberg, the unfortunate Cecil Travis...yes, but not Hodges.

There is a significant difference. Those guys, and many others, had their careers interrupted when they already had MLB established credentials having played a number of years before the war.

Gil Hodges had not established his credentials in MLB by the time of the war. We KNOW what those guys did. We don't know what Gil Hodges would have done if he had started 2 1/2 years earlier...no way can we know.

[yanks0714]

Alot of you guys are saying "IF" Gil played some where else, well he didn't and he was a big part of a great team. You guys say "IF" so and so was the 1st baseman of the Dodgers they would have done just as well, well Gil was the 1st baseman of those Dodgers teams while Klu and Adcock were losing in other places. Lets stop this IF stuff the fact is that Gil played for the Dodgers.
He was the best 1st baseman of his era, and with well deserved credit for his military time Gil would have been in the HOF years ago.

Gil deserves no war credit at all. He hadn't estalished himself at that point. How can you give someone credit for what they might have done when there is no basis for what they had done prior to the war?

The point others are making about Klu and Adcock is that had they been in Hodges position instead of Gil those Dodger teams wouldn't have missed a beat.

[yanks0714]

No one ever said one person is responsible, it was a team effort, they just had more very good players then most teams had.

Kramer, put aside your obvious support for Gil Hodges for a second.

Give me your ordered list of who you feel were the Most Valuable Dodgers of those years.

I'm curious as to how you will rank them.

[yanks0714]

I didn't put much thought into the ballpark question -- just sort of used the CW that Ebbets was a hitter's haven and that Tiger Stadium was less so.

So I'm inclined to just defer to someone who has put thought into it. :clapping

Before I'd decide I would want to see Cash's Home/Away plits as well as Hodges' Home/Away splits.

[Cougar]

That makes sense.

[kramer_47]

No, I can't see giving Gil credit for the war years. Ted Williams, Bob Feller, Hank Greenberg, the unfortunate Cecil Travis...yes, but not Hodges.

There is a significant difference. Those guys, and many others, had their careers interrupted when they already had MLB established credentials having played a number of years before the war.

Gil Hodges had not established his credentials in MLB by the time of the war. We KNOW what those guys did. We don't know what Gil Hodges would have done if he had started 2 1/2 years earlier...no way can we know.

He lost 2 1/2 years at the beginning of his career which turned out to be a very good career. It doesn't matter if he lost the time at the beginning, middle or end he should get credit. If nothing else he lost 2 1/2 years that he could have developed in 1943-44-45-46 and been major league ready for the 1946 or 1947 season that would give him at least 2 more years of stats and we wouldn't be discussing this he'd already be in the HOF.

[kramer_47]

Kramer, put aside your obvious support for Gil Hodges for a second.

Give me your ordered list of who you feel were the Most Valuable Dodgers of those years.

I'm curious as to how you will rank them.

Every year was different and everyone on that great team had a different job but I will try to rank them.

1949
Robby
Gil
Furillo
Campy
Duke
Peewee

1950
Gil
Duke
Campy
Robby
Furillo
Peewee

1951
Campy
Gil
Robby
Peewee
Duke
Furillo

1952
Gil
Robby
Peewee
Campy
Duke
Furillo

1953
Campy
Duke
Gil
Furillo
Robby
Peewee

1954
Duke
Gil
Robby
Peewee
Furillo
Campy

1955
Duke
Campy
Gil
Furillo
Peewee
Robby

1956
Duke
Gil
Furillo
Robby
Peewee
Campy

1957
Duke
Gil
Furillo
Campy
Peewee
There are my picks from 1949-57.

[yanks0714]

Every year was different and everyone on that great team had a different job but I will try to rank them.

1949
Robby
Gil
Furillo
Campy
Duke
Peewee

1950
Gil
Duke
Campy
Robby
Furillo
Peewee

1951
Campy
Gil
Robby
Peewee
Duke
Furillo

1952
Gil
Robby
Peewee
Campy
Duke
Furillo

1953
Campy
Duke
Gil
Furillo
Robby
Peewee

1954
Duke
Gil
Robby
Peewee
Furillo
Campy

1955
Duke
Campy
Gil
Furillo
Peewee
Robby

1956
Duke
Gil
Furillo
Robby
Peewee
Campy

1957
Duke
Gil
Furillo
Campy
Peewee
There are my picks from 1949-57.

I was looking from a standpoint of the duration. So I made a list and assigned points 10 for first; 8 for second; 6 for third; 4 for fourth; 2 for fifth; none for sixth.

Your rnaking would be as follow:
Gil 72 points
Duke 62 points
Campy 50 points
Robby 40 points (with 1 year less)
Furillo 30 points
Pee Wee 18 points

Interesting perspective. Many would give Duke and Campy more points than Gil. I personally would give Jackie more points if we went back to '47. On a different baseball board I used to frequent there is a rabid Brooklyn Dodger fan who idolizes Duke Snider. He clains that Duke was the best CF'er of the 1950's....over both Mays and Mantle.

[RuthMayBond]

On a different baseball board I used to frequent there is a rabid Brooklyn Dodger fan who idolizes Duke Snider. He clains that Duke was the best CF'er of the 1950's....over both Mays and Mantle.
And Brooklyn Dodger fans are always completely objective :rolleyes:

[jalbright]

Using the Win Shares book, here's what it says:

1949: Jackie, Reese, Campy/Snider (tie), Furillo
1950: Jackie/Snider (tie), Campy/Newcombe (tie), Hodges
1951: Jackie, Campy, Hodges, Reese/Snider (tie)
1952: Jackie. Hodges, Snider, Reese, Campy
1953: Snider, Campy, Gilliam/Hodges/Jackie (tie)
1954: Snider, Hodges, Reese, Gilliam/Jackie (tie)
1955: Snider, Campy, Newcombe, Hodges, Furillo
1956: Snider, Gilliam, Newcombe, Hodges, Furillo/Jackie (tie)
1957: Snider, Drysdale/Hodges, Podres, Cimoli

Using the 10-8-6-4-2 approach and pooling points for ties and then dividing by the number of tied players, here's what I get:

Snider 73
Jackie 47
Hodges 43
Campy 36
Reese 17
Gilliam 15
Drysdale 7
Furillo 5
Podres 4
Cimoli 2

By comparison:

Every year was different and everyone on that great team had a different job but I will try to rank them.

1949
Robby
Gil
Furillo
Campy
Duke
Peewee

1950
Gil
Duke
Campy
Robby
Furillo
Peewee

1951
Campy
Gil
Robby
Peewee
Duke
Furillo

1952
Gil
Robby
Peewee
Campy
Duke
Furillo

1953
Campy
Duke
Gil
Furillo
Robby
Peewee

1954
Duke
Gil
Robby
Peewee
Furillo
Campy

1955
Duke
Campy
Gil
Furillo
Peewee
Robby

1956
Duke
Gil
Furillo
Robby
Peewee
Campy

1957
Duke
Gil
Furillo
Campy
Peewee
There are my picks from 1949-57.
I was looking from a standpoint of the duration. So I made a list and assigned points 10 for first; 8 for second; 6 for third; 4 for fourth; 2 for fifth; none for sixth.

Your rnaking would be as follow:
Gil 72 points
Duke 62 points
Campy 50 points
Robby 40 points (with 1 year less)
Furillo 30 points
Pee Wee 18 points

Interesting perspective. Many would give Duke and Campy more points than Gil. I personally would give Jackie more points if we went back to '47. On a different baseball board I used to frequent there is a rabid Brooklyn Dodger fan who idolizes Duke Snider. He clains that Duke was the best CF'er of the 1950's....over both Mays and Mantle.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

I was looking from a standpoint of the duration. So I made a list and assigned points 10 for first; 8 for second; 6 for third; 4 for fourth; 2 for fifth; none for sixth.

Your rnaking would be as follow:
Gil 72 points
Duke 62 points
Campy 50 points
Robby 40 points (with 1 year less)
Furillo 30 points
Pee Wee 18 points

Interesting perspective. Many would give Duke and Campy more points than Gil. I personally would give Jackie more points if we went back to '47. On a different baseball board I used to frequent there is a rabid Brooklyn Dodger fan who idolizes Duke Snider. He clains that Duke was the best CF'er of the 1950's....over both Mays and Mantle.

I was trying to be objective as possible using the years 1949-57, If it was back to 1947 of course Robby would get higher rating. !949-57 were the glory years where this club had all these players playing full time.

[kramer_47]

Using the Win Shares book, here's what it says:

1949: Jackie, Reese, Campy/Snider (tie), Furillo
1950: Jackie/Snider (tie), Campy/Newcombe (tie), Hodges
1951: Jackie, Campy, Hodges, Reese/Snider (tie)
1952: Jackie. Hodges, Snider, Reese, Campy
1953: Snider, Campy, Gilliam/Hodges/Jackie (tie)
1954: Snider, Hodges, Reese, Gilliam/Jackie (tie)
1955: Snider, Campy, Newcombe, Hodges, Furillo
1956: Snider, Gilliam, Newcombe, Hodges, Furillo/Jackie (tie)
1957: Snider, Drysdale/Hodges, Podres, Cimoli

Using the 10-8-6-4-2 approach and pooling points for ties and then dividing by the number of tied players, here's what I get:

Snider 73
Jackie 47
Hodges 43
Campy 36
Reese 17
Gilliam 15
Drysdale 7
Furillo 5
Podres 4
Cimoli 2

By comparison:




Jim Albright

Your winshares is very interesting, I would personally take the pitchers out and just use the every day players because of there day in day out contributions, my picks and your picks aren't far off I just disagree with 1949. The others are close where there may be a few flip flops in each year, also the fact Gil gets penilized for being a 1st baseman, I also didn't include Gilliam because I thought we were rating the main 6 guys from those years and he didn't come up until 1953. This was very interesting.

[jalbright]

Your winshares is very interesting, I would personally take the pitchers out and just use the every day players because of there day in day out contributions, my picks and your picks aren't far off I just disagree with 1949. The others are close where there may be a few flip flops in each year, also the fact Gil gets penilized for being a 1st baseman, I also didn't include Gilliam because I thought we were rating the main 6 guys from those years and he didn't come up until 1953. This was very interesting.

OK, we only have to make the following changes:

1950: Jackie/Snider (tie), Campy, Hodges, Reese
1955: Snider, Campy, Hodges, Furillo, Reese
1956: Snider, Gilliam, Hodges, Furillo/Jackie (tie)
1957: Snider, Hodges, Cimoli/Gilliam/Neal (tie)

The standings would be:

Snider 73
Hodges 54
Jackie 49
Campy 37
Reese 25
Gilliam 19
Furillo 9
Cimoli 4
Neal 2

Really, the only serious discrepancy between you and win shares is Hodges himself. You have Hodges a great deal higher than the method does.

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

OK, we only have to make the following changes:

1950: Jackie/Snider (tie), Campy, Hodges, Reese
1955: Snider, Campy, Hodges, Furillo, Reese
1956: Snider, Gilliam, Hodges, Furillo/Jackie (tie)
1957: Snider, Hodges, Cimoli/Gilliam/Neal (tie)

The standings would be:

Snider 73
Hodges 54
Jackie 49
Campy 37
Reese 25
Gilliam 19
Furillo 9
Cimoli 4
Neal 2

Really, the only serious discrepancy between you and win shares is Hodges himself. You have Hodges a great deal higher than the method does.

Jim Albright

There really isn't that much of a difference, I thought with the winshares there would be a wider discrepancy it does prove Hodges was right there every year helping the Dodgers win.

[jalbright]

I for one never claimed he wasn't a valuable part of the Dodgers. Reese started earlier, and Jackie and Campy played well in the Negro Leagues when they should have been able to play in the majors. Another factor is the competition--1B and OF face stiffer competition for the HOF than do middle infielders. The bottom line for me is, was Hodges just over or just under the in/out line?

Jim Albright

[kramer_47]

I for one never claimed he wasn't a valuable part of the Dodgers. Reese started earlier, and Jackie and Campy played well in the Negro Leagues when they should have been able to play in the majors. Another factor is the competition--1B and OF face stiffer competition for the HOF than do middle infielders. The bottom line for me is, was Hodges just over or just under the in/out line?

Jim Albright

We now see that Gil was a valuable member of those powerhouse 1949-57 Brooklyn Dodgers teams. I know 1B and Of get less credit then middle infielders I don't know why it takes 9 players to make a team on the field. We
really don't know what would have happened if Gil got those 2 1/2 years of military time to develop but seeing what he did after he got the chance he probably would have been successful 2 years earlier starting in 1947. We really don't know what the negro league players would have done if they got there earlier and we really don't know what players who get credit when their career ends early because of injury would have done. We are just assuming they would have done well, we really don't know because it never happened, so why be so hardnosed on Hodges but not on Robby, Campy or Puckett. Gil was a war hero he wasn't off playing for some base team in the states or overseas like some players during the war, that's why some players didn't miss a beat they were playing while in the service. So lets cut some slack for the players that actually fought for our freedom.

[The Commissioner]

I try to see the case for Hodges but I just can't get past the list of his most similar players.

Norm Cash (932)
George Foster (921)
Tino Martinez (921)
Jack Clark (916)
Boog Powell (898)
Joe Adcock (895)
Lee May (894)
Rocky Colavito (893)
Willie Horton (888)
Roy Sievers (880)

If Norm Cash and Jack Clark aren't Hall of Famers, how can Hodges be?

I really don't put much stock in James' similarity scores. If you look at how they are calculated, well frankly some of the numbers they plug in, don't make a ton of sense. I guess that could explain why two of the three "most similar" players to Rickey Henderson according to that are Paul Molitor and Rusty Staub?

[jalbright]

We now see that Gil was a valuable member of those powerhouse 1949-57 Brooklyn Dodgers teams. I know 1B and Of get less credit then middle infielders I don't know why it takes 9 players to make a team on the field. We
really don't know what would have happened if Gil got those 2 1/2 years of military time to develop but seeing what he did after he got the chance he probably would have been successful 2 years earlier starting in 1947. We really don't know what the negro league players would have done if they got there earlier and we really don't know what players who get credit when their career ends early because of injury would have done. We are just assuming they would have done well, we really don't know because it never happened, so why be so hardnosed on Hodges but not on Robby, Campy or Puckett. Gil was a war hero he wasn't off playing for some base team in the states or overseas like some players during the war, that's why some players didn't miss a beat they were playing while in the service. So lets cut some slack for the players that actually fought for our freedom.

We've been over this and over this and over this. I've told you what I need to consider giving him the amount of credit you think he deserves and why. If you don't want to do it or can't, I'm sorry, but I'm sticking with my position. If you actually care to come up with that evidence, I will be more than happy to evaluate it. You were willing to meet the challenge when I posed it--why the apparent cold feet now?

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have posted this topic in other forums, but I think it's a good one. I believe that Gil Hodges' HOF candidacy brings up certain issues unique to his candidacy.

I am a resident of Indian River County, FL, and I attend Dodger spring training games. Even now, there are some oldtimers who still speak about Gil Hodges, and how he should be in the HOF. I also attend Met spring training games, and there, some oldtimers remember the Miracle Mets (I do, too!) and talk of how Hodges, the manager, should be in the HOF.

Hodges isn't in the HOF, of course. Not as a player, not as a manager. I believe that Hodges is the most highly regarded baseball MAN that is NOT in the HOF.

I'm leery of proposing the idea, but if Hodges is short as a player, and if he's short as a manager, is it POSSIBLE that Hodges' playing and managing careers could be evaluated together as one, and he be inducted into the HOF on the strength of both combined?

There isn't really much precedent for this. I thought of Eckersley, and his relieving and starting combined, but Eck really got in on his relief, alone. Same with the Babe; he'd be the greatest ever if he never pitched an inning.

Hodges is different, though; he had greatness as a player and greatness as a manager, but both were cut short, one on the front end, and one by an early death.

Hodges, the player, is similar to Tony Perez in BA and in career HRs, but Hodges achieved his career totals in much shorter time. There is an 11 season swath where Hodges built his credentials.

Hodges had a cup of coffee in 1943 at age 19; a tip that he was a potential star back then. He served in WWII after that; and when he came back to the Dodgers, he encountered two roadblocks. He was blocked off from his position of catcher by Bruce Edwards (who hit .295 in 1947 and was a surprisingly good prospect who was pushed aside by a better prospect, Roy Campanella) and from first base by Jackie Robinson (who played first all of 1947). Hodges split time between 1B and C in 1948 before establishing himself at 1B the next year. He held the position through the end of 1959. His stats in 1958 and 1959 are skewed because he played in the weirdly shaped L. A. Coliseum, which had short foul poles and a deep, deep, deep CF with deep power alleys. The park cut down on power alley HRs, and also cut down on BA.

Hodges was one of the top four stars of the most successful Dodger teams in history. The Dodgers won six pennants and two world championships with Hodges at first, and he was a critical player; the Dodgers probably would not have won some of those pennants without Hodges. His performance was considered central to the Dodgers' success. Hodges rates behind Snider and Robinson, and, in most years, ahead of Campy, but CLEARLY ahead of Furillo, Drysdale, and some others. Subjectively, I consider Hodges to be more important to the Dodgers than Tony Perez was to the Reds. He was an 8 time all-star, and was the best 1B of the 1950s. He retired second in career HRs for NL right handed batters.

As a manager, Gil Hodges took a terrible Senator team that was populated with the expansion draft bottom of the barrel personnel and improved it every year. Hodges was 76-85 his last year with the Senators. Those of you who know nothing but free agency have no idea how tough it was to build a talent base back in the reserve clause era when your expansion team started with the crummiest players around. As Met manager, he improved them a whole lot in 1968 (12 games), then came the Miracle. The Miracle happened, in no small part, because of Hodges' genius in platooning:

In RF, Hodges platooned Ron Swoboda and Art Shamsky

At 3B, Hodges platooned Wayne Garrett and Ed Charles

At 2B, Hodges platooned Ken Boswell and Al Weis.

At 1B, Hodges platooned Ed Kranepool and Donn Clendennon

In two of these cases (Boswell and Garrett), Hodges made these guys first time platoon regulars. Hodges recognized their ability to get on base. In RF, Hodges recognized Shamsky as a pre-Phelps Ken Phelps; a platoon superstar, and played him at the expense of Ron Swoboda, who was a fan favorite, but who was clearly not living up to the hype.

Hodges also discovered his top fireman; Tug McGraw, taking him out of the rotation and making him a star reliever. He used a 4 man rotation, but the back end was a bit weak. Hodges used Don Cardwell, Jim McAndrew, and a young and erratic Nolan Ryan as his 4th starter. (Hodges hoped Ryan would step forward and take the job, but that didn't happen in 1969.)

The 1970-71 Mets each went 83-79 finishing 3rd each time. The Mets were 6 games out in 1970, but 14 out in 1971. Hodges died suddenly in 1972 spring training.

Had he lived, Hodges would, I am sure, have been a HOF manager. Had he come up 2-3 seasons earlier, Hodges would have had 400 HRs, and probably would have made the HOF with that. He didn't. No manager has made the HOF managing as few seasons as Hodges, and most players who do what Hodges do are NOT in the HOF.

So what about the combined value of his playing and managing? At the risk of setting a bad precedent, would it be appropriate to induct Hodges as both a player AND a manager? By that, I mean inducting him for the value of his entire career in baseball.

If it could be sui generis, if Hodges's case could not be a precedent, I would support his induction based on the combined value of his playing and his managing career. Hodges was famous, and he was special. And he was a great human being as well; Don Cardwell has said that Gil was the greatest man he ever knew in baseball, and the Mets were not a team riddled with dissension. Hodges was a great baseball man, with a great career in baseball, and I support honoring him that way.

[jalbright]

Hodges had one good season as a manager, which isn't enough to really alter how I view him as a player. Managers have to have multiple successes to impress me. "Success" begins at being above .500. If you do well with project teams but don't get the wins and playoff appearances and more as a manager, you're nowhere. Ask Gene Mauch, whose chops as a manager are far better proven than Hodges', IMO. Hodges also gets no slack for his untimely demise.

I have no doubt Hodges was a wonderful guy, but that means nothing to me in a HOF debate, sorry to say. The "morals clause" may be a legitimate reason to keep a guy out, but I have no desire to let anyone in through that door, or we'll never hear the end of variations on "he was a nice guy".

Which gets us to Hodges' play. He played the equvialent of 1 1/2 to 2 seasons less than Perez (800 PA IIRC), and I'm comfortable saying that Perez with his greater playing time is in, though not by much, and Hodges, with his lesser playing time, is out, though not by much.

The one escape hatch I have for Hodges is that although he didn't perform for a couple of seasons after returning from the service, if someone can demonstrate a persuasive case in terms of specific aspects of the game Hodges needed to develop that his years in the service in WWII impeded, I might be persuaded to raise Hodges over the line, though still a tad behind Perez. To date, no one has made that case to me.

Jim Albright

[Jake83]

At some point he may get in but if his former Dodger teammates never voted him in why would the other veterns.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hodges had one good season as a manager, which isn't enough to really alter how I view him as a player. Managers have to have multiple successes to impress me. "Success" begins at being above .500. If you do well with project teams but don't get the wins and playoff appearances and more as a manager, you're nowhere. Ask Gene Mauch, whose chops as a manager are far better proven than Hodges', IMO. Hodges also gets no slack for his untimely demise.

I disagree strongly with your assessment of Hodges as a manager. I don't know how old you are, but if you are not old enough to remember baseball before free agency, you may not be able to appreciate the job Hodges did with the Washington Senators.

When Hodges took over the Senators, there was no free agency. An expansion team did not have the option of signing a free agent superstar to generate immediate improvement. Teams had to make trades to improve, and most trades involved rearrangement of talent, or trading today's star for younger minor leaguers in the hope of increasing the team's overall talent base.

Trading out of trouble was hard for a team like the expansion Senators, however, because of how lousy they were to begin with. The pool of players for the Senators to pick from was nowhere near as good as the pool that, say, the Marlins and Rockies picked from. It was the worst pool ever; the pool pretty much consisted of the guys no one wanted.

And as for building through the minor league system, there was no free agent draft; that didn't begin until 1965. It was the era of the "bonus baby", and this process favored the richer teams, such as the Yankees, Dodgers, and Cardinals. Besides, such a player was years away from helping the team.

Consider Hodges' record in that context:

Managerial Record Glossary

Year League Team Age G W L WP Finish
+----+-----------+--------+---+-----+----+----+------+------+
1963 American Lg Washngtn 39 121 42 79 .347 10
1964 American Lg Washngtn 40 162 62 100 .383 9
1965 American Lg Washngtn 41 162 70 92 .432 8
1966 American Lg Washngtn 42 159 71 88 .447 8
1967 American Lg Washngtn 43 161 76 85 .472 6

1968 National Lg NewYorkM 44 163 73 89 .451 9
1969 NL East NewYorkM 45 162 100 62 .617 WS 1
1970 NL East NewYorkM 46 162 83 79 .512 3
1971 NL East NewYorkM 47 162 83 79 .512 3
+----+-----------+--------+---+-----+----+----+------+------+
NewYorkM 649 339 309 .523
Washngtn 765 321 444 .420
+----+-----------+--------+---+-----+----+----+------+------+
TOTAL 1414 660 753 .467

Note the consistent improvement with Washinton; they were ALMOST at .500 by 1967. At that time, no expansion team, save for the Angels, had ever finished above .500. Furthermore, no expansion team showed the consistent improvement the Senators did. The Angels stole some seasons near, or even OVER .500, but they were up and down. (The Angels were the best expansion team of the 61-62 group; they lucked out by finding Dean Chance and Leon Wagner in the expansion draft, as well as a few guys who could hit 20 HRs every so often; they seem to have drafted better than the other teams.)

Hodges did a great job managing the Senators; that they didn't post a winning record was the result of the awful talent they had. The Mets traded for Hodges, and he brought immediate improvement to the Mets. The 1969 Mets are well documented, but it shouldn't be forgotten that Hodges (A) didn't let them give up, (B) beat a better team to win it all, and (C) did this while platooning at four positions. This is remarkable, and a reflection on the manager, in that he was able to recognize weaknesses and compensate.

[Brownie31]

Hodges had one good season as a manager, which isn't enough to really alter how I view him as a player. Managers have to have multiple successes to impress me. "Success" begins at being above .500. If you do well with project teams but don't get the wins and playoff appearances and more as a manager, you're nowhere. Ask Gene Mauch, whose chops as a manager are far better proven than Hodges', IMO. Hodges also gets no slack for his untimely demise.

jalbright:

A little perspective on "one good season as a manager".
Do you have any concept of the early history of the
New York Mets?

This was a team that lost over 100 games in five of
its first six seasons including a record 120 games in
their debut year of 1962. I remember those days
very well.

This was when the Mets were a national joke-a
guaranteed punchline for every TV and night club
comic in the land.

All Gil Hodges did (in only his second year as Mets
generalissimo) was to take this seemingly misbegotten
ragtag team and win 100 games and the NL pennant
and then upset an Oriole juggernaut in a five game
World Series.

That in itself is one hell of an accomplishment, IMHO.

As to his playing days, he was a starting regular on
a powerful team that won six pennants and two
world series over eleven seasons. This accomplishment
and Hodges' statistics far outshine those of the most
recent inductee, Bruce Sutter, again IMHO.

Gill Hodges should have long ago been in the HOF.

Brownie31

[Yankwood]

I agree that Gil Hodges workings as a manager has faded over time and it's a shame. I still view the "Miracle Mets" of '69 as one of the most improbable stories in sports history.

[leecemark]

--Hodges might have been a great manager, but he wasn't a successfull manager (excepting 1969). Managers don't get into the Hall of Fame by turning terrible teams into mediocore ones. They get in by winning championships or at least winning alot of games and contending for championships. Hodges had only one Hall of Fame type season as a manager. And that may be one more HoF season than he had as a player.

[Brownie31]

--Hodges might have been a great manager, but he wasn't a successfull manager (excepting 1969). Managers don't get into the Hall of Fame by turning terrible teams into mediocore ones. They get in by winning championships or at least winning alot of games and contending for championships. Hodges had only one Hall of Fame type season as a manager. And that may be one more HoF season than he had as a player.

Hodges turned a dreadful, godawful team into a world champion.
This wasn't McCarthy, Stengel, Alston or Houk stepping into an
already powerful team and winning.

This was making something out of as near nothing as you can
get.

Brownie31

[cup2006sensrule]

Well if Hodges were to get in as a combination Manager/Player than Joe Torre should be considered too. It may be redundant as he likley gets in as a straight manager but his playing accomplishments are pretty good too.

Gold Glove catcher 1965
MVP 1971
HOF monitor 96
HOF stnadards 40.1

Career .297 hitter 2342 hits, 1185 RBIs

[SABR Matt]

I can't believe there are 3 people deluded enough to think that Gil Hodges is a HOF calibar player.

[538280]

No, Gil Hodges shouldn't be within a mile of the HOF. He was a first baseman who put up some nice raw numbers, but when you adjust for context they're not all that great. As a manager, he may have turned an awful team into an okay one, but he only had one year when his team was truly successful. Managers get into the HOF by winning pennnants, not by managing mediocre teams.

The people who see Hodges as the best 1Bman outside of the Hall, ahead of Dick Allen, are completely delusional.

[Outta Here]

No, Gil Hodges shouldn't be within a mile of the HOF. He was a first baseman who put up some nice raw numbers, but when you adjust for context they're not all that great. As a manager, he may have turned an awful team into an okay one, but he only had one year when his team was truly successful. Managers get into the HOF by winning pennnants, not by managing mediocre teams.

The people who see Hodges as the best 1Bman outside of the Hall, ahead of Dick Allen, are completely delusional.

Agree with u 100%

[Yankwood]

No, Gil Hodges shouldn't be within a mile of the HOF. He was a first baseman who put up some nice raw numbers, but when you adjust for context they're not all that great. As a manager, he may have turned an awful team into an okay one, but he only had one year when his team was truly successful. Managers get into the HOF by winning pennnants, not by managing mediocre teams.

The people who see Hodges as the best 1Bman outside of the Hall, ahead of Dick Allen, are completely delusional.Now I'm sure he belongs. Just kidding,.And as far as Torre, he's a shoe-in.

[jalbright]

As pointed out here, Hodges may have had some success in improving bad teams--but you don't get into the HOF that way. You get there with multiple contenders/pennant winners/world champs--and maybe not even then. Hodges only managed a little over 1400 games, and had a .467 winning percentage. He had only one team that finished higher than third and/or closer to the lead than six games. He only had three seasons over .500, and two were 83-79 jobs. Those are just not anywhere near HOF credentials--and to me, the only way the combined manager/player bit works is if both parts are close but not quite HOF caliber. So, Hodges' managerial work means nada to me. Sorry.

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

Torre will get in the HOF as a manager, alone. He MIGHT even get in as a player alone. No one doubts that Torre rates ahead of Hodges on both scores at this point.

As pointed out here, Hodges may have had some success in improving bad teams--but you don't get into the HOF that way. You get there with multiple contenders/pennant winners/world champs--and maybe not even then.

Maybe you SHOULD get in the HOF that way under some circumstances.

[538280]

Does anyone have Hodges' RCAP numbers handy? The average 1Bman usually has about a 115 OPS+, Hodges at 120 was barely over that. I would think such a metric would silence the annoying support that generates for Hodges every once in a while. His numbers, when placed in league and park context, are not impressive at all. The number of people voting yes to Hodges as just a player is rather disheartening, and surprising as well, to me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Does anyone have Hodges' RCAP numbers handy? The average 1Bman usually has about a 115 OPS+, Hodges at 120 was barely over that. I would think such a metric would silence the annoying support that generates for Hodges every once in a while. His numbers, when placed in league and park context, are not impressive at all. The number of people voting yes to Hodges as just a player is rather disheartening, and surprising as well, to me.

What are the figures for Hodges' 11 best seasons? Take away 1960-63 and 1948, what are his stats then?

[538280]

What are the figures for Hodges' 11 best seasons? Take away 1960-63 and 1948, what are his stats then?

That would be the prime of his career, and my guess looking at his numbers is that it would be around 130. Not anywhere near the prime figure I'd want from a 1Bman. The prime figure has got to be at least 140 for me (unless he has an extremely, extremely long career, a la Jake Beckley).

For a guy with a relatively short career like Hodges, his 120 OPS+ falls WAY short of HOF levels.

His OPS+ isn't good, simply because for his time his numbers weren't anything all that special. He never led his league in any offensive category despite playing in a very favorable hitter's park, and playing a big offensive position.. His entire summary of black ink (2 points) is because he twice played in all of his team's games. For a suppsedly HOF caliber first baseman, to not have ever led your league in anything is, well, it invalidates his whole case.

[Gee Walker]

Is Gil Hodges' case for the HOF significantly better than Hank Bauer's? Bauer was over .500 as a manager in 5 of his 8 years. He did this starting with a dreadful Kansas City A's team, and brought them in two years to about as good as that franchise ever got (72-90). This is the team that supplied Roger Maris among many others to the Yankees in exchange for some extra spare parts that the Yankees didn't need.

He then went to Baltimore, still dealing with the heritage of the St. Louis Browns, and almost won a pennant with them immediately. His teams won over 90 games three years in a row, culminating in the shocking upset of the Dodgers in 1966. For the first two years of this mini-dynasty, it's hard to figure out how they were so good - no Frank Robinson, no Jim Palmer, no Mike Cuellar.

Bauer did miss significant time due to being in the Marines in WWII. He still played 14 productive seasons, mostly with the Yankees, until he was traded to the aforementioned Kansas City A's in a package deal for... Roger Maris.

I don't think Hank Bauer should be in the Hall of Fame. And he's the closest comp to Gil Hodges that I can find. Not as good a ballplayer as Hodges, but a better manager.

[flash143817]

Hodges is a little short of a HOFer to me. He was a good player on good teams, but not an elite HOF-type player. He is better than some guys that are in the HOF but that shouldn't be a good reason to put a guy in.

He was a good hitter, a good defensive 1B, and a good teammate. But is being "good" good enough for the HOF? Not quite, IMO.

[jalbright]

If Hodges was such a great manager and deserves so much credit for the 1969 Mets, doesn't he deserve some criticism for not being able to keep the team at anything like the level of 1969? They went from 100 wins in '69 to two 83-79 years (Hodges' last two).

My own perspective is Hodges was smart enough not to get in the way of his good fortune in 1969, but things evened out on him in the year before and the year after. Let's look at his actual record and what the Bill James' Pythagorean theorem would say he should have done based on the number of runs scored and allowed by the Mets (all seasons 162 games):

.....................actual..........Pythagorean
1968.................73..................77
1969................100.................92
1970.................83..................88

Over those three years, the Mets' luck is neutral, but since they concentrated it all in one year, it got them a World Series title. IMO, the Mets that year were "Amazing" precisely because they had an unusually large number of things go right, but that they couldn't sustain over time.

Jim Albright

[538280]

Is Gil Hodges' case for the HOF significantly better than Hank Bauer's? Bauer was over .500 as a manager in 5 of his 8 years. He did this starting with a dreadful Kansas City A's team, and brought them in two years to about as good as that franchise ever got (72-90). This is the team that supplied Roger Maris among many others to the Yankees in exchange for some extra spare parts that the Yankees didn't need.

He then went to Baltimore, still dealing with the heritage of the St. Louis Browns, and almost won a pennant with them immediately. His teams won over 90 games three years in a row, culminating in the shocking upset of the Dodgers in 1966. For the first two years of this mini-dynasty, it's hard to figure out how they were so good - no Frank Robinson, no Jim Palmer, no Mike Cuellar.

Bauer did miss significant time due to being in the Marines in WWII. He still played 14 productive seasons, mostly with the Yankees, until he was traded to the aforementioned Kansas City A's in a package deal for... Roger Maris.

I don't think Hank Bauer should be in the Hall of Fame. And he's the closest comp to Gil Hodges that I can find. Not as good a ballplayer as Hodges, but a better manager.

Felipe Alou is somewhat close. Hodges was a little bit of a better player than Alou, though in context not by all that much, but Alou has been a much more successful manager. I see that as a reasonable comp, and if Alou played in the 50s in Ebbets Field I"m sure his raw numbers would get him some HOF attention from old Brooklyn Dodgers fans.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is Gil Hodges' case for the HOF significantly better than Hank Bauer's? Bauer was over .500 as a manager in 5 of his 8 years. He did this starting with a dreadful Kansas City A's team, and brought them in two years to about as good as that franchise ever got (72-90). This is the team that supplied Roger Maris among many others to the Yankees in exchange for some extra spare parts that the Yankees didn't need.

He then went to Baltimore, still dealing with the heritage of the St. Louis Browns, and almost won a pennant with them immediately. His teams won over 90 games three years in a row, culminating in the shocking upset of the Dodgers in 1966. For the first two years of this mini-dynasty, it's hard to figure out how they were so good - no Frank Robinson, no Jim Palmer, no Mike Cuellar.

Bauer did miss significant time due to being in the Marines in WWII. He still played 14 productive seasons, mostly with the Yankees, until he was traded to the aforementioned Kansas City A's in a package deal for... Roger Maris.

I don't think Hank Bauer should be in the Hall of Fame. And he's the closest comp to Gil Hodges that I can find. Not as good a ballplayer as Hodges, but a better manager.

I'm trying to be kind, but the comparision between Bauer and Hodges is just ludicrous:

(A) Bauer was a semi-regular on a team which won the pennant almost every year. Bauer platooned with Gene Woodling at times. Hodges, on the other hand, was the best 1B in the NL in the 1950s, played in far more All-Star games, and was one of four stars that were absolutely central to the success of the Dodger teams of the 1950s. He was far more important to his team, and a far better player (hitting OVER 200 MORE HRs in his career than Bauer).

(B) Hodges took over teams that were dead-last place fodder. The reference to the St. Louis Browns in the post quoted is nonsense; the 1960 O's finished 2nd, the 61 O's finished 3rd, the 62 O's finished 7th, the 63 O's finished 3rd, and then Bauer came along in 1964. The 1969 A's didn't have the same history of success, but the 1968 A's had gotten back over .500, and Bauer came along at a time where Reggie Jackson, Sal Bando, and Rick Monday were all established major leaguers. Bauer was a good manager, and he did an excellent job in 1966, but Hodges was a great manager, who played the hands he was dealt far more skillfully.

[AstrosFan]

According to the pull of parity method, Hodges was a mediocre manager, even if we take away his first season, when he was getting settled in.
Take 1964. Hodges improved the team by six games. But since teams are historically drawn toward .500, they should have improved. In fact, my spreadsheet says they should have won 2 more games than they did.
Much of Hodge's improvements to the team can be explained by the pull of parity. Making no allowance for his first season, the chance that his wins, which are adjusted to a 162 game season, are fully explained by luck, is .764. Without that first season, it's .469.
His 1969 season is terrific, one of the finest managerial seasons of all time. But the improvements with the Senators can be explained by the pull of parity. This method certainly isn't perfect, but good managers do well in it most of the time. Hodges just doesn't seem to be one of them.

[Gee Walker]

I'm trying to be kind, but the comparision between Bauer and Hodges is just ludicrous:

(A) Bauer was a semi-regular on a team which won the pennant almost every year. Bauer platooned with Gene Woodling at times. Hodges, on the other hand, was the best 1B in the NL in the 1950s, played in far more All-Star games, and was one of four stars that were absolutely central to the success of the Dodger teams of the 1950s. He was far more important to his team, and a far better player (hitting OVER 200 MORE HRs in his career than Bauer).

(B) Hodges took over teams that were dead-last place fodder. The reference to the St. Louis Browns in the post quoted is nonsense; the 1960 O's finished 2nd, the 61 O's finished 3rd, the 62 O's finished 7th, the 63 O's finished 3rd, and then Bauer came along in 1964. The 1969 A's didn't have the same history of success, but the 1968 A's had gotten back over .500, and Bauer came along at a time where Reggie Jackson, Sal Bando, and Rick Monday were all established major leaguers. Bauer was a good manager, and he did an excellent job in 1966, but Hodges was a great manager, who played the hands he was dealt far more skillfully.


First of all, Bauer's first managerial job was with the KANSAS CITY A's. This team perennially looked up to the Washington Senators - and Bauer's work there improved more in two years than Hodges did in all five years in Washington. Second, the early 60's Baltimore teams finished "in the first division", but a long way from the pennant race. Taking this team from 18.5 games out of first to two games out of first is quite an accomplishment. Keeping that team there for two more years, culminating in a World Series win, is very impressive too.

Finally, as pointed out previously, Hodges couldn't maintain any success with the Mets.

Hodges was one of the three tragic figures of "The Boys of Summer". In the book, Jackie Robinson is clearly dying of complications from hypertension, while Billy Cox is drinking himself to death. Hodges seems to be the great success story of all the team members, but a heart attack killed him at age 47.

That's sad news, but Yogi Berra, who very few people consider a great manager, took over the Mets team and improved them by 20 percentage points in 1972. This is with Seaver having a sub-par year (for him), and with Jim Fregosi playing regularly, reminding everyone of the loss of Nolan Ryan, and having an OPS of .655. The year after, Berra somehow got the Mets to the World Series - after they went 83-79.

So, I rest my case. Hodges was a better player than Bauer, and it's not very close. Bauer was a better manager than Hodges, and it ain't close either.

[AstrosFan]

For the record, Bauer's pull of parity performance is at .503 with his first season included, .210 without. Either way, he looks like he's significantly better than Hodges.

[romanos72]

Hodges was a great baseball man, with a great career in baseball, and I support honoring him that way.[/QUOTE]


Hmmm...Perhaps a great man, but...Hodges had almost 700 more at bats than Dick Allen and did not surpass him in any major hitting category except career doubles and hits (narrowly). I believe that one's managerial or broadcast career after playing should be considered in the voting. If Hodges ever gets the nod (which he won't), it will have to be because of the combination of the two and his contributions to a great Dodger team. Stats alone don't put him ahead of guys like Allen or Torre. In fact, years from now, Torre may go in for his contributions to the MLB in a player and managerial role, but not just for his playing career. If I am choosing one of these guys on the basis of both his playing career and managerial career combined, I'd go with Torre.

[Candlestick60]

Why isnt Gil hodges in the hall of fame? I think its about time he got in? C60:radio

[Brad Harris]

Because at least 26% of the electorate have disagreed with you every time he's appeared on a ballot.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we combine this with any number of Gil Hodges threads?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's a thread about Hodges that I started that I hope can be combined.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In Gil Hodges teammates own words like Duke Snider, Pee Wee Reese, and Roy Campanella, Gil is a Hall of Famer. The words come from Hofers and teammates themselves. I just quoted a book, The Quiet Man, Gil Hodges by Marino Amoroso. Pages numbers are listed. I did all the research.
Jackie did a great thing, but he did not do it alone. The team was involved. As Jack(Jackie Robinson) said, He counted on Gil. Look at the quote and Page #. What would it have been like without Gil Hodges?
Take a look at the following blog. It's all history. Be a part of history!
http://gilhodgesdodgers.blogspot.com/

Someone has taken up the Hodges banner again; perhaps we can combine the many threads.

Hodges is, perhaps, the highest vote-getter on the BBWAA ballot not to make the HOF. Nellie Fox did better without getting in by writers, but the VC took him in.

I think that the Boys of Summer Brooklyn Dodgers, and not the New York Yankees, are one of the most over-honored teams in baseball history. They dominated the NL almost as much as the Yankees dominated the AL from the time Jackie Robinson was a rookie through 1966; they won 10 pennants in 19 years, and that's pretty impressive.

Despite the fact that the Dodgers won fewer pennants and fewer WCs than the Yankees, they have more HOFers from the 1957-64 era:

DODGERS


Reese
Campanella
Snider
Koufax
Drysdale
Robinson



YANKEES


Mantle
Berra
Ford
DiMaggio
Rizzuto


Notice that Rizzuto's selection took much longer than Reese's, and was much more controversial. Note how long it took Joe Gordon (who was traded in 1947, but spent his best years as a Yankee) to make the HOF. (I grant you that Reese was the superior player, but the decision on both of these guys wasn't really driven by honest analysis, IMO.)

The pro-Dodger sportswriters from New York have held influence out of proportion to their numbers for many years. Most have passed from the scene, and soon, all the old Dodger fans and writers will have died. Some of the over-honoring of Dodgers is an act of grieving for a team that was taken away from a city that loved them. I agree that the Dodgers should have never left Brooklyn, but that's not the HOF's fault, and enshrining Hodges (and Newk and Furillo and . . .) isn't the solution for that problem.

I don't want to add new Yankees

[Cougar]

Someone has taken up the Hodges banner again; perhaps we can combine the many threads.

Hodges is, perhaps, the highest vote-getter on the BBWAA ballot not to make the HOF. Nellie Fox did better without getting in by writers, but the VC took him in.

Doesn't this tell us something?? Granted, the obvious rejoinder is that someone has to be. Still, no one who had career achievements like Gil Hodges at the time he retired didn't get into the HOF - and that was before he managed the Miracle Mets!

I think that the Boys of Summer Brooklyn Dodgers, and not the New York Yankees, are one of the most over-honored teams in baseball history. They dominated the NL almost as much as the Yankees dominated the AL from the time Jackie Robinson was a rookie through 1966; they won 10 pennants in 19 years, and that's pretty impressive.

Despite the fact that the Dodgers won fewer pennants and fewer WCs than the Yankees, they have more HOFers from the 1957-64 era:

DODGERS


Reese
Campanella
Snider
Koufax
Drysdale
Robinson



YANKEES


Mantle
Berra
Ford
DiMaggio
Rizzuto


Dodgers: Only Koufax and Drysdale are in the HOF primarily because of what they did 1957-64. (Koufax really just '61-'66; Drysdale was pretty solid throughout that stretch). Robinson retired after 1956, Campy had his horrible accident in late 1957. Snider and Reese were hanging on, but were well past their primes.

Yankees: DiMaggio retired in 1951! Rizzuto was done in 1956. Berra was past his prime by 1957, albeit still a strong contributor. This was Mickey's and Whitey's heyday.

Notice that Rizzuto's selection took much longer than Reese's, and was much more controversial. Note how long it took Joe Gordon (who was traded in 1947, but spent his best years as a Yankee) to make the HOF. (I grant you that Reese was the superior player, but the decision on both of these guys wasn't really driven by honest analysis, IMO.)

The pro-Dodger sportswriters from New York have held influence out of proportion to their numbers for many years. Most have passed from the scene, and soon, all the old Dodger fans and writers will have died. Some of the over-honoring of Dodgers is an act of grieving for a team that was taken away from a city that loved them. I agree that the Dodgers should have never left Brooklyn, but that's not the HOF's fault, and enshrining Hodges (and Newk and Furillo and . . .) isn't the solution for that problem.

I don't want to add new Yankees

Huh...I thought you were arguing against new Dodgers.

Anyway, if the Boys of Summer have an outsized place in baseball lore -- a lot of that has to do with their success, with the elegiac quality of the team leaving Brooklyn, and especially because of the historic role of Jackie Robinson, one which transcended baseball. That's not Gil's fault -- it's to his credit.

[Los Bravos]

Doesn't this tell us something?? Granted, the obvious rejoinder is that someone has to be. Still, no one who had career achievements like Gil Hodges at the time he retired didn't get into the HOF - and that was before he managed the Miracle Mets!(Emphasis added)

I really think that's the key to Hodges' case. It's easy to lose sight of it now, but his career totals were far more impressive on the lists at the time he stopped playing.Dodgers: Only Koufax and Drysdale are in the HOF primarily because of what they did 1957-64. (Koufax really just '61-'66; Drysdale was pretty solid throughout that stretch). Robinson retired after 1956, Campy had his horrible accident in late 1957. Snider and Reese were hanging on, but were well past their primes.

Yankees: DiMaggio retired in 1951! Rizzuto was done in 1956. Berra was past his prime by 1957, albeit still a strong contributor. This was Mickey's and Whitey's heyday.I don't want to speak for FB, but I think he meant '47-'64. That's usually considered the classic era of New York-centric Baseball.

I think the relative lack of Yankees in the Hall from this period is reflective of their organizational mindset (bloodless and solely dedicated to winning) than it is indicative of Dodgers overrepresentation. The instant you looked to be slipping, the Yankees greased the skids under you and got on the horn to the K.C. A's to make a deal.

[Cougar]

I don't want to speak for FB, but I think he meant '47-'64. That's usually considered the classic era of New York-centric Baseball.

That makes much more sense. I'm sure that's what Fuzzy meant. I should have figured that out, actually, but I've been on heavy painkillers. (The worst should be over now.)

[Cougar]

(Emphasis added)

I really think [Hodges' totals at the time of his retirement are] the key to Hodges' case. It's easy to lose sight of it now, but his career totals were far more impressive on the lists at the time he stopped playing.

Exactly. We're always talking of context...well, that's the ultimate context to my mind. What was hiis place in the game while he played. (And managed.) He was a giant, is what he was.