Gil Hodges-will he ever get his shot?

[MattM]

With the Hall of Fame ballot being released, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, and Mark McGwire head list of potentials this year. It seems that every year, Dodger & Met fans hope to see Gil Hodges finally get the long-overdue call, but each passing year makes me realize the unlikelyhood of ever going to Cooperstown and seeing Mr. Hodges name up there. This really shows what a farce the Hall of Fame has become. To even consider Mark McGwire in the midst of the steroid scandal is a disgrace to the game. If you let McGwire in, then by all means, someone like Pete Rose should be in as well. I understand the Hall of Fame being the last stop for the truly great players, and although Hodges himself never lead the league in batting average, he should at least be put in as a manager. Anyone have any other thoughts?

[Shotgun Shuba]

It all depends on what you think the Hall of Fame should be. Is it a collection of immortals? If so, Hodges is not close. Is it a collection of the very good? Then Hodges does make it. There are many players in the Hall that Hodges was better than but I cant buy an argument that since it's already sullied lets just let Gil in. He was a very good player on a great team but I just can't lobby for him as a player or manager. He was one of the best 1st sackers of his generation but that is not enough for me. I need the stats of a McCovey, Terry, Murray, Foxx ,Greenberg, Mize, Sisler. I guess he was as good as Tony Perez, is he in? I guess I am saying I cant look at Hodges and Gehrig as equals.

[Sliding Billy]

There are many players in the Hall that Hodges was better than but I cant buy an argument that since it's already sullied lets just let Gil in.
Good point. What kind of an honor is that?

Gil was my favorite player back in the fifties, but I never thought he was a Hall of Famer. He was a mensch, though, and that's more important, in my book.

[EvanAparra]

Good point. What kind of an honor is that?

Gil was my favorite player back in the fifties, but I never thought he was a Hall of Famer. He was a mensch, though, and that's more important, in my book.

Yeah, as big as a Hodges fan as I am, I cant make him for the hall. Great player that will always live on as a hero in my mind, definately.

[musial6]

I would vote for Gil with his seven straight years of 100+ RBIs and eight straight years of ,500+ Slg. Avg., not to mention his phenomenal glove. Don't think Lou Gehrig--think Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda, both HoF first basemen.

[EvanAparra]

See, but Cepeda and Perez put up those numbers in a much lower offensive era. But I actually would only put in Cepeda of the 3.

I do understand why you would vote for Hodges, but I wouldn't personally.

[DODGER DEB]

The Hall of Fame Veteran's Committee results will be anounced on February 27, 2007.

Here's hoping OUR #14 will finally make it this time.

c.

[Aa3rt]

It seems that every year, Dodger & Met fans hope to see Gil Hodges finally get the long-overdue call, but each passing year makes me realize the unlikelyhood of ever going to Cooperstown and seeing Mr. Hodges name up there.

Not just Dodgers & Mets fans-Gil is fondly remembered for his tenure (1963-1967) with the expansion Washington Senators. Although Gil suffered the indignity of inheriting one of the most inept expansion teams ever assembled (speaking as a fan of my beloved Senators) the teams did show slow improvement during Gil's time as a manager. Gil is one of my personal favorites as well, and I certainly hope that he is FINALLY given his due recognition.

[TheBulldog]

Not just Dodgers & Mets fans-Gil is fondly remembered for his tenure (1963-1967) with the expansion Washington Senators. Although Gil suffered the indignity of inheriting one of the most inept expansion teams ever assembled (speaking as a fan of my beloved Senators) the teams did show slow improvement during Gil's time as a manager. Gil is one of my personal favorites as well, and I certainly hope that he is FINALLY given his due recognition.
Good points Aa3rt. Every year Gil managed the Senators, they improved. In fact from year one to year two the Senators improved over 20 wins. And from Gil's first year to his last year in Washington the Senaors improved by over 30 games. One also has to remember Hodges went straight from player to manager. Gil's first year withe the Mets the team won the most games in their history, and then of course the magical year of 1969. I would say that is a pretty fair manegerial career that was cut short way to early.

[KCGHOST]

During a particularly difficult during the Constitional Convention with all most every delegate complaining about the final product, Benjamin Franklin asked each them to "....dare to doubt your own infallibility". Merely because the voters fail to select someone who is a favorite of yours doesn't make the HoF a bogus organization or the voters a bunch of boneheads. It means the voters disagree with you and that it is just as likely that you are the one who is wrong.

Yes, there are players in the HoF who are worse than Hodges, but that is a pretty pathetic reason to elect someone to the HoF. Likewise are we going to elect every manager who wins one championship?? I think not.

[TheBulldog]

During a particularly difficult during the Constitional Convention with all most every delegate complaining about the final product, Benjamin Franklin asked each them to "....dare to doubt your own infallibility". Merely because the voters fail to select someone who is a favorite of yours doesn't make the HoF a bogus organization or the voters a bunch of boneheads. It means the voters disagree with you and that it is just as likely that you are the one who is wrong.

Yes, there are players in the HoF who are worse than Hodges, but that is a pretty pathetic reason to elect someone to the HoF. Likewise are we going to elect every manager who wins one championship?? I think not.
Where in this thread has anybody called the HOF bogus or boneheads? Several people have pointed out pluses, several people have pointed out minuses. This is one of the most mild mannered discussions I have seen on this subject, save the lecture for some other place.

[LouGehrig]

With the Hall of Fame ballot being released, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, and Mark McGwire head list of potentials this year. It seems that every year, Dodger & Met fans hope to see Gil Hodges finally get the long-overdue call, but each passing year makes me realize the unlikelyhood of ever going to Cooperstown and seeing Mr. Hodges name up there. This really shows what a farce the Hall of Fame has become. To even consider Mark McGwire in the midst of the steroid scandal is a disgrace to the game. If you let McGwire in, then by all means, someone like Pete Rose should be in as well. I understand the Hall of Fame being the last stop for the truly great players, and although Hodges himself never lead the league in batting average, he should at least be put in as a manager. Anyone have any other thoughts?

First, it is not Dodgers and Mets fans---it is many BASEBALL fans, including this Yankee who rooted AGAINST Hodges. He belongs.

Second, nothing has been proven against McGwire and he must, until otherwise shown, be judged on his record.
Click on link:

http://baseballpiggies.blogspot.com/

Third, Pete Rose's is a different case.

[LouGehrig]

I cant look at Hodges and Gehrig as equals.

Is there ANYONE you can look at as Gehrig's equal among first basemen?

[LouGehrig]

The Hall of Fame Veteran's Committee results will be anounced on February 27, 2007.

Here's hoping OUR #14 will finally make it this time.

c.

YOUR #14, but yes, here's hoping he makes it this time. Statistics do not show the greatness or the value of a player. Hodges was a leader, a quiet, strong leader. Ask Cleon Jones.

He was the greatest defensive RIGHT HANDED first baseman in baseball history, something that is not mentioned often enough.

When Hodges was managing the Senators, and did pretty well with a pretty bad team, and when I heard he was going to manage the Mets, I "knew" that the Mets would become a dangerous team.

No question Seaver and Koosman and McGraw helped, but they were young and inexperienced and he led them. He is a Hall of Famer.

[DODGER DEB]

YOUR #14, but yes, here's hoping he makes it this time. Statistics do not show the greatness or the value of a player. Hodges was a leader, a quiet, strong leader. Ask Cleon Jones.

He was the greatest defensive RIGHT HANDED first baseman in baseball history, something that is not mentioned often enough.

When Hodges was managing the Senators, and did pretty well with a pretty bad team, and when I heard he was going to manage the Mets, I "knew" that the Mets would become a dangerous team.

No question Seaver and Koosman and McGraw helped, but they were young and inexperienced and he led them. He is a Hall of Famer.

Thank you, Lou!

c.

[iPod]

He was the greatest defensive RIGHT HANDED first baseman in baseball history, something that is not mentioned often enough.


That's a meaningless distinction though. Being the best right-handed batter ever is a meaningful distinction because there are a lot of times in the course of an average baseball game when the handedness of a hitter is important. There are virtually no instances of the handedness of a first baseman on the field being important.

[TheBulldog]

That's a meaningless distinction though. Being the best right-handed batter ever is a meaningful distinction because there are a lot of times in the course of an average baseball game when the handedness of a hitter is important. There are virtually no instances of the handedness of a first baseman on the field being important.
Throughout baseball history, firstbase has been considered a lefthanders position. Firstbase was also a place where you put a slugger who couldn't field. Hodges became the best righthanded firstbaseman, and with his athleticism, showed that putting an exceptional fielder at first could help a teams overall defense. He became one of the best at making the 3-6-3 doubleplay.Good fielding righthanded first baseman have always been mentioned as such.

[mandrake]

Is there ANYONE you can look at as Gehrig's equal among first basemen?

To be a hall of famer, you do not need to be as good as someone else who is already in. Don't compare anyone to Gehrig. If he did not get sick , he could have been up near 700 homers, especially if he hung around during WWII when MLB talent was very scarce. Even at 41 or 42, he would have owned 15 and 16 year olds that were pressed into MLB service. (Joe Nuxhall vs Lou...wanna bet on that one?)

I do not include Hodges as a manager. Joe Torre was not a hall of fame player, but will get in as a manager some day. Mgr and player are two different things.

Many Yankee fans and former Yankee players have supported Hodges as a Hall of famer, just as former Brooklynites supported Phil Rizzuto. Ted Wiliams supported both Phil and Gil, but kept running into old timers from other teams who felt that there were too many NYers from that era in Cooperstown. Of course, we should remind the baseball world that a NY team won every single world series GAME from 1949 - 1956...yes, every game. The Hall should be loaded with Giants , Dodgers and Yankees from that era because they dominated the game. True superstars like Williams knew this. Remember, when the Duke finally got in, Ted cracked that if sportswriters were so smart, why did it take the Duke so long to get in?

[strummer]

Ted Williams did not support Gil Hodges as a memebr of the HOF when Ted was on the Veterans Committee which was the longest term of anyone. The closest vote of that committee was in 1992 and Gil lost by one vote, as Campanella was too sick to make the trip to the meeting and they would not allow voting by phone or proxy.

Some people say Williams never had a high regard for Hodges as a hitter. Others say he felt ( or represented those who felt) that there were already too many New Yorkers in the Hall, and therefore raised the bar for New Yorkers. Others point out that he followed Hodges as manager of the Senators and the fans ribbed him to death , often calling for the return of Hodges who they loved, and he resented Hodges for that.

In 1995, Williams established the Ted Williams Museum and Hitters Hall of Fame in Citrus Hills Florida, where he maintained a house and fished. He had full say over the running of the Museum and who was elected to the Hitters Hall of Fame. The retirees in the area helped him run it, many volunteering to serve as doscents. Duke Snider was not among the first 20 inductees, nor would you expect him to be included in the top 20 hitters of the game alltime. But Williams liked him enough to put him in the first class after the original inductees, together with Josh Gibson, Chuck Klein, Harmon Killebrew, and Willie McCovey, not bad company to be with. Gil Hodges was never elected to the Hitters Hall of Fame.

[iPod]

Throughout baseball history, firstbase has been considered a lefthanders position. Firstbase was also a place where you put a slugger who couldn't field. Hodges became the best righthanded firstbaseman, and with his athleticism, showed that putting an exceptional fielder at first could help a teams overall defense. He became one of the best at making the 3-6-3 doubleplay.Good fielding righthanded first baseman have always been mentioned as such.

First of all, let's just set aside the suggestion that Hodges "showed that putting an exceptional fielder at first could help a teams overall defense." Teams already knew that, there just are a scarcity of good fielders at first.

Of course Hodges was a good fielding first baseman. I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm saying that pointing out his being the best right-handed fielding first baseman ever is a useless point to make because there is never a specific situation where a manager would say "man, if only my first baseman threw right-handed right about now" in the same way that he would say "man, if only I could send a right-handed batter to the plate right now" or "man, if only my pitcher was right-handed right now". The handedness of hitters and pitchers is important, because it has situational impact. There is no situational impact of the handedness of a first baseman on the field (unless you really think right-handers have a huge advantage in making a 3-6-3 double play, which I don't see why, and besides which, how often does that happen?), so why bother making the distinction?

Pointing out Hodges was the best right-handed fielding first baseman ever is basically saying "Yes, he wasn't the best fielding first baseman ever, but its not fair to hold him to that standard, because he had situational value that better overall fielders didn't have." You could make that argument for hitters or pitchers; that maybe a hitter who does particularly well against lefties should receive bonus points above a guy with better numbers but who is situationally less versatile, but there's no reason to give a guy bonus points for being a right-handed fielder. There's no value in that, so it's pointless to try to build a HoF case around it.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Gil Hodges and Don Mattingly are both borderline HoFers who were icons for their respective teams. IMO if Hodges if better than Donnie than Hodges deserves to be in.

Hodges has a very slight edge in career WARP 3 in about 200 more games. He is even with Donnie in MVP caliber seasons with 4. He is worse in career EQA by about .10 points in 200 more games. Hodge's best season was worse than Mattingly's by about .20 points. If you want to combine his record as a manager with his record as a player than I`d give him a spot but jsut as a player I say no. i don`t know about just as a manager either (I don`t know much about his record as a manager but it looks pretty impressive).

[yanks0714]

As I state on the HOF section if Gil Hodges had put up the same numbers he did as Brooklyn Dodger as a St. Louis Brown, Philadelphia/Kansas City Athletic, Boston Brave, or even as a New York Giant would any of you be having this discussion.

His individual stats do not merit the HOF. Teams do not not get elected to the HOF. If you have a Brooklyn Dodger HOF go ahead and induct him if he's not already.

And don't throw Sunny Jim Bottomley or George Kelly or Jake Beckley at me.....they don't belong either.

[tonypug]

As I state on the HOF section if Gil Hodges had put up the same numbers he did as Brooklyn Dodger as a St. Louis Brown, Philadelphia/Kansas City Athletic, Boston Brave, or even as a New York Giant would any of you be having this discussion.

His individual stats do not merit the HOF. Teams do not not get elected to the HOF. If you have a Brooklyn Dodger HOF go ahead and induct him if he's not already.

And don't throw Sunny Jim Bottomley or George Kelly or Jake Beckley at me.....they don't belong either.
Yanks, how do you know he wouldn't have put up even bigger numbers if he was on the teams you mentioned? Rickey had serious talhs with the Cube about trading Hodges in 1950. Wid Mathews the Cubs GM at the time wanted to Make Hodges his catcher. If he puts up anything close to the numbers he had he would alredy be in the HOF. With the Cube or the other teams you mentioned he would have batted cleanup every game, maybe the numbers are even better then what he put up with the Dodgers hitting down in the order. You guys make me laugh when you say don't bring up certain players, who are in the HOF because they don't belong. Well the problem is , they are in the HOF, and they aren't being kicked out.

[Sliding Billy]

You guys make me laugh when you say don't bring up certain players, who are in the HOF because they don't belong. Well the problem is , they are in the HOF, and they aren't being kicked out.
No, the problem is that if the HOF admitted everyone who deserved a place next to those on the lowest tier, it would be full of guys like Rico Petrocelli and Roy Sievers.

The point was made on another Hodges thread, if we want to honor Gil's memory, we wouldn't do so by basing a claim on what we know were past HOF mistakes.

[tonypug]

No, the problem is that if the HOF admitted everyone who deserved a place next to those on the lowest tier, it would be full of guys like Rico Petrocelli and Roy Sievers.

The point was made on another Hodges thread, if we want to honor Gil's memory, we wouldn't do so by basing a claim on what we know were past HOF mistakes.
Since when are there tiers in the HOF? Past HOF mistakes and the future HOF mistakes we know are going to come?

[Sliding Billy]

Since when are there tiers in the HOF? Past HOF mistakes and the future HOF mistakes we know are going to come?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

[The Kid]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

Me neither

[tonypug]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
Billy, you said if all the players who were next to the bottom tier were elected the HOF would be crowded with players like Roy Sievers. My question, since when are there tiers in the HOF?

You said the point was made on another Hodges thread, that if we want to honor Gil's memory, we wouldn't do so by basing a claim on what we know were past HOF mistakes. My reply was Past mistakes and future mistakes we know are going to come?
Its nice to know you are looking out for Gil's best interests.

[Sliding Billy]

Billy, you said if all the players who were next to the bottom tier were elected the HOF would be crowded with players like Roy Sievers. My question, since when are there tiers in the HOF?

You said the point was made on another Hodges thread, that if we want to honor Gil's memory, we wouldn't do so by basing a claim on what we know were past HOF mistakes. My reply was Past mistakes and future mistakes we know are going to come?
Its nice to know you are looking out for Gil's best interests.
Well, Gil was my favorite player during the '50's, so I feel I owe him. :)

Yes, we also should not anticipate future mistakes by making a pre-emptive one in Gil's case.

As far as HOF tiers go, they're commonplace in discussions on the HOF thread, if not in the Hall itself. Since you are a veteran poster here, and I am not, I was puzzled that they would be unfamiliar to you.

[tonypug]

Well, Gil was my favorite player during the '50's, so I feel I owe him. :)

Yes, we also should not anticipate future mistakes by making a pre-emptive one in Gil's case.

As far as HOF tiers go, they're commonplace in discussions on the HOF thread, if not in the Hall itself. Since you are a veteran poster here, and I am not, I was puzzled that they would be unfamiliar to you.
Tiers are talked about, but aren't real. There are no tiers in the HOF. All of us who were alive and rooting for the Dodgers during the 50's would agree, Gil himself would be upset that there is so much controversy surrounding his election to the HOF.He was above all else a team player and could care less about individual statistics. There is and should be more then just raw statistics taken into consideration when voting for the HOF. Everyone of Gil's teammates, bothe the HOFers and non HOFers all felt that Hodges belonged in the HOF. That carries a lot of weight in my book. Hodges has to be judged according to the era he played in, not against those who have played since.
There are those in the HOF forum who like to play God, they carry no more weight then I do.

[kramer_47]

I just read this article where Mike Schmidt said he has changed the way he thinks on who should be in the HOF, the first 3 votes of the new veterans committee he took a very hard stands on who should be in. He thought if you weren't voted in by the writers you didn't deserve being in the HOF but since he has soften his stance because of Gary Carter.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/wires/12/23/2010.ap.bbo.schmidt.hall.of.fame.1394/index.html

[iPod]

Tony,

No, there literally aren't tiers within the Hall of Fame. But I think we can all agree guys like George Kelly are pretty low on the virtual totem pole. Basically it seems like you're saying that it's not fair to treat Kelly as if he's not a deserving Hall of Famer because he is, after all, in the Hall of Fame, and deserves to be treated as such in future discussions about the Hall. The problem is that if you think of it this way, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of players that suddenly are deserving of the Hall because they were just as good as Kelly. If Hodges is a deserving HoFer, it's not because he was as good as Kelly, because of the sheer number of players better than him. Bob Watson was also as good as Kelly. If your argument can also be used in favor of Bob Watson, it's a useless argument.

[yanks0714]

Yanks, how do you know he wouldn't have put up even bigger numbers if he was on the teams you mentioned? Rickey had serious talhs with the Cube about trading Hodges in 1950. Wid Mathews the Cubs GM at the time wanted to Make Hodges his catcher. If he puts up anything close to the numbers he had he would alredy be in the HOF. With the Cube or the other teams you mentioned he would have batted cleanup every game, maybe the numbers are even better then what he put up with the Dodgers hitting down in the order. You guys make me laugh when you say don't bring up certain players, who are in the HOF because they don't belong. Well the problem is , they are in the HOF, and they aren't being kicked out.

Make certain you read what I said: I said if he had put up the same numbers that he did with Dodgers and played for one of those other teams we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You then suggested that he may have put up even better numbers. That's a whole different ball game. If he had had better numbers maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation be cause he might already be in the HOF.
But it is what it is and he's not in the HOF for the numbers he put up as a Brooklyn Dodger.
As for the other HOF 1B who I mentioned, they along with other players were buddies of Frankie Frisch when Frisch was on the Vets Comm. Frisch did a disservice to the HOF by getting his buddies elected when they don't merit induction. Why should we elected Hodges, who also doesn't belong, just because Frisch made a travesty of Vets elections?

[Sliding Billy]

Tiers are talked about, but aren't real. There are no tiers in the HOF. All of us who were alive and rooting for the Dodgers during the 50's would agree, Gil himself would be upset that there is so much controversy surrounding his election to the HOF.He was above all else a team player and could care less about individual statistics. There is and should be more then just raw statistics taken into consideration when voting for the HOF. Everyone of Gil's teammates, bothe the HOFers and non HOFers all felt that Hodges belonged in the HOF. That carries a lot of weight in my book. Hodges has to be judged according to the era he played in, not against those who have played since.
There are those in the HOF forum who like to play God, they carry no more weight then I do.
Of course they like to play God. That's what the internet is for.:) I wasn't invoking their authority, just pointing out that ranking players within the Hall of Fame is a common pastime on BBF.

The reason his selection is controversial is that there is only a slender case for a player with his numbers, while there is a very active campaign on his behalf. No one is beating the drum for Jack Clark's selection. Though I would not particularly look to Hodges's mates for objective viewpoints, it's true that choices aren't based on numbers alone: Kirby Puckett's first-round selection is a case in point. Gil certainly has a lot of intangibles and extras going for him. If the HOF in its wisdom decides that OUR GIL belongs, well, they've made worse mistakes in worse causes.

But, you see, if I drew up a list of "What I Admire," Gil Hodges would be quite a few notches above the Hall of Fame, in part because a large number of members are there due to special pleading. I prefer to see him as one of the best outside than someone who got in the way he would get in. But I don't have a vote, and why should I spoil anyone else's fun?

If the purpose of this thread is, to paraphrase, "Not to understand Hodges's HOF status, but to change it," then postings like mine don't really belong here, and I apologize for intruding.

[tonypug]

Billy, Yanks and Ipod, this has been a great thread. Everyone has stated their case and their reasons in a very mature manner. There has been very little pontificating, which is what turns me off at the HOF forum. As far as tiers go, I would be in favor of that.That truly greats such as Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb deserve special recognition as the founding super stars of baseball. I have said many times, if only the truly great were in the HOF, I would never suggest Hodges for induction. As one of you said, what it is, it is, and right now the HOF is not made up of only the best of the best.Other sports HOF's recognize the very good players, not just the very elite, maybe its time baseball does the same.Agin in closing I would be all for an elite players wing in the HOF. Happy Holidays to all you guys and gals.

[Sliding Billy]

Billy, Yanks and Ipod, this has been a great thread. Everyone has stated their case and their reasons in a very mature manner. There has been very little pontificating, which is what turns me off at the HOF forum. As far as tiers go, I would be in favor of that.That truly greats such as Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb deserve special recognition as the founding super stars of baseball. I have said many times, if only the truly great were in the HOF, I would never suggest Hodges for induction. As one of you said, what it is, it is, and right now the HOF is not made up of only the best of the best.Other sports HOF's recognize the very good players, not just the very elite, maybe its time baseball does the same.Agin in closing I would be all for an elite players wing in the HOF. Happy Holidays to all you guys and gals.
Cheers, Tony.

[kramer_47]

Tony,

No, there literally aren't tiers within the Hall of Fame. But I think we can all agree guys like George Kelly are pretty low on the virtual totem pole. Basically it seems like you're saying that it's not fair to treat Kelly as if he's not a deserving Hall of Famer because he is, after all, in the Hall of Fame, and deserves to be treated as such in future discussions about the Hall. The problem is that if you think of it this way, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of players that suddenly are deserving of the Hall because they were just as good as Kelly. If Hodges is a deserving HoFer, it's not because he was as good as Kelly, because of the sheer number of players better than him. Bob Watson was also as good as Kelly. If your argument can also be used in favor of Bob Watson, it's a useless argument.

Now you are getting absolutely ridiculous comparing Bob Watson to Gil Hodges, Bob Watson couldn't shine Gil's shoes at bat or in the field. Gil was one of the power guys with one of the best teams in history, Bob Watson made it to one World Series, I'm tired of seeing Gil compared to guys like Watson, Adcock and Kluzewski. Gil knock in 100 runs 7 years straight in the Dodgers glory years, Watson did it twice and Houston won neither year Adcock did it twice and the Braves won either year Kluzewski did it 5 times in none winning years for the Reds. None of these guys come close to being compared to what Gil did for "the team" of the late forties and fifties. People seem to forget the five things that the voters should look at when voting for a player for the HOF, here they are.
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Kramer 47 has nailed it - once again!

[tonypug]

Now you are getting absolutely ridiculous comparing Bob Watson to Gil Hodges, Bob Watson couldn't shine Gil's shoes at bat or in the field. Gil was one of the power guys with one of the best teams in history, Bob Watson made it to one World Series, I'm tired of seeing Gil compared to guys like Watson, Adcock and Kluzewski. Gil knock in 100 runs 7 years straight in the Dodgers glory years, Watson did it twice and Houston won neither year Adcock did it twice and the Braves won either year Kluzewski did it 5 times in none winning years for the Reds. None of these guys come close to being compared to what Gil did for "the team" of the late forties and fifties. People seem to forget the five things that the voters should look at when voting for a player for the HOF, here they are.
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Very good Kramer. My signature block has carried that message for a long time. Unfortunatly most people stop after the first two, record and playing ability. Hodges has nothing to be ashamed about there either.For some reason, Hodges name has become the name drawn in the sand.Forget past mistakes, forget future mistakes we know are coming,but Hodges is the one that needs to be stopped, how ridiculous that is.

[MattM]

Very good Kramer. My signature block has carried that message for a long time. Unfortunatly most people stop after the first two, record and playing ability. Hodges has nothing to be ashamed about there either.For some reason, Hodges name has become the name drawn in the sand.Forget past mistakes, forget future mistakes we know are coming,but Hodges is the one that needs to be stopped, how ridiculous that is.

What can your average fan do in order to get Gil even acknowledged by the writers?

[tonypug]

What can your average fan do in order to get Gil even acknowledged by the writers?
Matt, it's not the writers, but the veterans committee, that will decide whether Gil gets in or not. You can write to them care of the Hall of Fame and letters are forwarded to them.There is a list of the veterans committee on the HOF website.

[MattM]

Matt, it's not the writers, but the veterans committee, that will decide whether Gil gets in or not. You can write to them care of the Hall of Fame and letters are forwarded to them.There is a list of the veterans committee on the HOF website.

For some reason I always thought it was the writers. Oh well. I'm going to take a look and see if I can think of anything to write.

[yanks0714]

Now you are getting absolutely ridiculous comparing Bob Watson to Gil Hodges, Bob Watson couldn't shine Gil's shoes at bat or in the field. Gil was one of the power guys with one of the best teams in history, Bob Watson made it to one World Series, I'm tired of seeing Gil compared to guys like Watson, Adcock and Kluzewski. Gil knock in 100 runs 7 years straight in the Dodgers glory years, Watson did it twice and Houston won neither year Adcock did it twice and the Braves won either year Kluzewski did it 5 times in none winning years for the Reds. None of these guys come close to being compared to what Gil did for "the team" of the late forties and fifties. People seem to forget the five things that the voters should look at when voting for a player for the HOF, here they are.
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Considering RBIs in and of themselves, Gil should be thankful for his teammates setting the table for him to drive them in. With guys like Jackie, Pee Wee, Duke hitting ahead of him and guys like Campy and Furillo hitting behind him, Gil had plenty opportunities for RBIs and protection in the batting order.
BTW, Bob Watson played for the Astros. He never made it to the WS. Put Big Klu or Adcock in the Dodgers line-up and they do the same thing Hodges did. The Dodgers wouldn't miss a beat. Put Hodges in the Reds or Braves line-up and it wouldn't have made a difference.

BTW, do any of you feel the following guys are HOF material? Norm Cash, George Foster, Tino Martinez, Jack Clark, Boog Powell, Joe Adcock, Lee May, Rocky Colovito, Willie Horton, and Roy Sievers?

According to baseball.reference they are the most similiar hitters to Gil Hodges. None is a HOF'er.

Black Ink: Batting - 2 (579) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 128 (137) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 31.7 (249) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 83.0 (197) (Likely HOFer > 100)

In this assessment he doesn't stack up either.

I'm a die hard Yankee fan. When I hear people say that Roger Maris, Don Mattingly, Ron Guidry, or some other old Yankee should be in the HOF I tell them 'nope, they ain't HOF material.'

[iPod]

Now you are getting absolutely ridiculous comparing Bob Watson to Gil Hodges, Bob Watson couldn't shine Gil's shoes at bat or in the field. Gil was one of the power guys with one of the best teams in history, Bob Watson made it to one World Series, I'm tired of seeing Gil compared to guys like Watson, Adcock and Kluzewski. Gil knock in 100 runs 7 years straight in the Dodgers glory years, Watson did it twice and Houston won neither year Adcock did it twice and the Braves won either year Kluzewski did it 5 times in none winning years for the Reds. None of these guys come close to being compared to what Gil did for "the team" of the late forties and fifties. People seem to forget the five things that the voters should look at when voting for a player for the HOF, here they are.
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

I'd take Hodges over Bob Watson. I was saying that bottom-feeder arguments like "Hodges was better than Player X who barely squeaked into the Hall of Fame through the Veteran's Committee" are very poor because you could also make those arguments for people like Bob Watson. I never said Watson was better than Hodges; frankly I don't see how you or anyone could have taken that from my post. But being better than Bob Watson doesn't make you a Hall of Famer.

[tonypug]

For some reason I always thought it was the writers. Oh well. I'm going to take a look and see if I can think of anything to write.
The sports writers elect current players, who have been out of the game for five years.

[iPod]

Very good Kramer. My signature block has carried that message for a long time. Unfortunatly most people stop after the first two, record and playing ability. Hodges has nothing to be ashamed about there either.For some reason, Hodges name has become the name drawn in the sand.Forget past mistakes, forget future mistakes we know are coming,but Hodges is the one that needs to be stopped, how ridiculous that is.

Absolutely Hodges is a line in the sand. Past mistakes have to be forgotten, there's nothing we can do about them now. I don't know, offhand, of any future mistakes that are inevitably going to happen aside from Hodges himself. Nobody but Hodges, Santo, and Goose Gossage are really knocking on the Hall's door right now, and I think the last two deserve to be inducted. If you induct Hodges, it becomes that much easier to induct that next guy that comes along who isn't quite there in terms of numbers. Once you induct someone for "character" it becomes way too easy to use "character" to arbitrarily fill the gaps in someone's candidacy by saying he was a "class act" or whatever.

It's inevitable though. Anyone who knows anything about the Hall of Fame knows that if there's this much grumbling about a guy he'll eventually get in whether or not he deserves it.

[tonypug]

Considering RBIs in and of themselves, Gil should be thankful for his teammates setting the table for him to drive them in. With guys like Jackie, Pee Wee, Duke hitting ahead of him and guys like Campy and Furillo hitting behind him, Gil had plenty opportunities for RBIs and protection in the batting order.
BTW, Bob Watson played for the Astros. He never made it to the WS. Put Big Klu or Adcock in the Dodgers line-up and they do the same thing Hodges did. The Dodgers wouldn't miss a beat. Put Hodges in the Reds or Braves line-up and it wouldn't have made a difference.

BTW, do any of you feel the following guys are HOF material? Norm Cash, George Foster, Tino Martinez, Jack Clark, Boog Powell, Joe Adcock, Lee May, Rocky Colovito, Willie Horton, and Roy Sievers?

According to baseball.reference they are the most similiar hitters to Gil Hodges. None is a HOF'er.

Black Ink: Batting - 2 (579) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 128 (137) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 31.7 (249) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 83.0 (197) (Likely HOFer > 100)

In this assessment he doesn't stack up either.

I'm a die hard Yankee fan. When I hear people say that Roger Maris, Don Mattingly, Ron Guidry, or some other old Yankee should be in the HOF I tell them 'nope, they ain't HOF material.'
For most years Hodges hit behind Campanella and Furillo. Hodges was the protection for the rest of the big hitters, not the other way around. He still got his RBI's in spite of that. Adcock and Kluzewski would not have done the same things Hodges did on the Dodgers. Kluzewski was lefthanded, the Dodgers would have faced a lot more lefties then they did, and Snider would not have been the same player. Klu and Adcock were always getting injured, most years Hodges led the league in games played. Put Hodges on the Braves and they probably would have won pennants in 1956 and 1959 as well as 57 and 58 and people would have been talking about a Braves dynasty.Put Hodges on the 1956 Reds in place of an often injured Kluzewski and they probably would have won the pennant. Kluzewsk batted third or cleanup most of his career. Had Hodges done that his numbers would have been much higher and he would already be in the HOF. All those players you mentioned with the exception of Tino Martinez, were just power hitteres, no defense to speak of for the most part very slow. When you compare them through all the things that are looked for in a HOFer they don't compare at all..Since when is hitting the only criteria for election to the HOF?

[tonypug]

Absolutely Hodges is a line in the sand. Past mistakes have to be forgotten, there's nothing we can do about them now. I don't know, offhand, of any future mistakes that are inevitably going to happen aside from Hodges himself. Nobody but Hodges, Santo, and Goose Gossage are really knocking on the Hall's door right now, and I think the last two deserve to be inducted. If you induct Hodges, it becomes that much easier to induct that next guy that comes along who, after all, was just so nice and really when you think about it wasn't too far off legitimate Hall numbers, and if Hodges is in why not this next guy too?

It's inevitable though. Anyone who knows anything about the Hall of Fame knows that if there's this much grumbling about a guy he'll eventually get in whether or not he deserves it.
You honestly think Santo and Gossage deserve to be in and not Hodges? I certainly wouldn't be upset to see all three make it, but most certainly not the oteh two without Hodges. What is all this he's just a nice guy crap, you guys need to hit the old newspapers and magazines and see what kind of player Hodges was, if you didn't get a chance to see him play. Numbers in the record book do him no justice at all.

[iPod]

What is all this he's just a nice guy crap, you guys need to hit the old newspapers and magazines and see what kind of player Hodges was, if you didn't get a chance to see him play. Numbers in the record book do him no justice at all.

OK, my post was a bit coarse, and I went back and toned it down a little 5 minutes after I made it (not soon enough however), I'll give you that. But I'm not the one who is citing the 5th Rule for Election to the Hall of Fame. I'm not the one who said "Unfortunatly most people stop after the first two, record and playing ability." You guys are the ones who brought character into the discussion, not me. However you want to argue it... military heroism, leadership, clutchness, just general niceness... it's in my opinion prohibitively dangerous to start using those things in cases where the numbers just don't get the guy into the Hall, because once you've set that precedent you can play that card for almost anyone. Honestly, how many times in the course of a Thom Brennaman broadcast do you hear about guys who are "great team leaders" or "clutch hitters" or "true class acts"? 10? 15? I'm not arguing that Hodges wasn't any of those things, I'm just saying it's not something to put a guy in the Hall of Fame over, you know?

As for his public perception during his years: I won't go into his placings in NL MVP voting, as I've already done that multiple times, but he did a lot worse than you'd think a Hall of Famer should have done. Admittedly my knowledge of Hodges is relegated to the internet and little bits I've read in books about baseball, but he scores poorly on pretty much every measuring stick I've thought of in terms of contemporary opinion. Here's one more; all-star games.

Hodges was named to 8 all-star teams, a good number. But he started for the NL only once out of those 8 times, 1951. There were two times he didn't even appear in the game, 1950 and 1952. In 1952, Hodges didn't appear because to get him in they would have had to take out the starter at first for the NL, Whitey Lockman. Twice, in 1949 and 1953, Hodges was brought in as a pinch runner, not even as a defensive replacement or pinch hitter. The two times he was brought in as a pinch hitter, 1955 and 1957, the manager did not put Hodges into the game at first base the next defensive inning. I think most people would agree with me that 1953-55 was Hodges' best run: 1953 and 54 were the only times he hit .300, he hit his career high in HR and RBI in 1954, 100 RBI all three years, in '55 the Dodgers win the WS, etc. In that span, when Hodges was at his absolute pinnacle, he backed up Ted Kluszewski at first for the NL all three years.

[tonypug]

OK, my post was a bit coarse, and I went back and toned it down a little 5 minutes after I made it (not soon enough however), I'll give you that. But I'm not the one who is citing the 5th Rule for Election to the Hall of Fame. I'm not the one who said "Unfortunatly most people stop after the first two, record and playing ability." You guys are the ones who brought character into the discussion, not me. However you want to argue it... military heroism, leadership, clutchness, just general niceness... it's in my opinion prohibitively dangerous to start using those things in cases where the numbers just don't get the guy into the Hall, because once you've set that precedent you can play that card for almost anyone. Honestly, how many times in the course of a Thom Brennaman broadcast do you hear about guys who are "great team leaders" or "clutch hitters" or "true class acts"? 10? 15? I'm not arguing that Hodges wasn't any of those things, I'm just saying it's not something to put a guy in the Hall of Fame over, you know?

As for his public perception during his years: I won't go into his placings in NL MVP voting, as I've already done that multiple times, but he did a lot worse than you'd think a Hall of Famer should have done. Admittedly my knowledge of Hodges is relegated to the internet and little bits I've read in books about baseball, but he scores poorly on pretty much every measuring stick I've thought of in terms of contemporary opinion. Here's one more; all-star games.

Hodges was named to 8 all-star teams, a good number. But he started for the NL only once out of those 8 times, 1951. There were two times he didn't even appear in the game, 1950 and 1952. In 1952, Hodges didn't appear because to get him in they would have had to take out the starter at first for the NL, Whitey Lockman. Twice, in 1949 and 1953, Hodges was brought in as a pinch runner, not even as a defensive replacement or pinch hitter. The two times he was brought in as a pinch hitter, 1955 and 1957, the manager did not put Hodges into the game at first base the next defensive inning. I think most people would agree with me that 1953-55 was Hodges' best run: 1953 and 54 were the only times he hit .300, he hit his career high in HR and RBI in 1954, 100 RBI all three years, in '55 the Dodgers win the WS, etc. In that span, when Hodges was at his absolute pinnacle, he backed up Ted Kluszewski at first for the NL all three years.
I guess we just missed each other.The big thing with Hodges was consitancy. On his team he could be penciled in for 30 HR's and 100 RBI's every year. Campanella and Snider while great players were inconsistant and you never knew what you would get from year to year. Robinson and Reese are in the HOF for reasons other then great numbers. Again I'm not knocking any of those players, I'm pointing out that Hodges strength on the Dodgers was his consistancy.The other players mentioned were more flamboyant and outspoken, and recieved more press then Hodges.Yes, Kluzewski, had a couple of years when he beat out Hodges for the All Star team, but Klu had injuries and was inconsistant.Hodges gets penalized for not having that one super year and doesn't get credit for turning in year after year of very good numbers. As far as other things besides numbers, that the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. Statistics are just one of the criteria, and while not super numbers in the Ruth, Gehrig Mays, class, his numbers aren't bad. I f we are looking just at numbers, you are right Hodges is similar to many other players. But election is SUPPOSED to be a whole picture and just not numbers.

[JamesWest]

Hodges was named to 8 all-star teams, a good number. But he started for the NL only once out of those 8 times, 1951. There were two times he didn't even appear in the game, 1950 and 1952. In 1952, Hodges didn't appear because to get him in they would have had to take out the starter at first for the NL, Whitey Lockman. Twice, in 1949 and 1953, Hodges was brought in as a pinch runner, not even as a defensive replacement or pinch hitter. The two times he was brought in as a pinch hitter, 1955 and 1957, the manager did not put Hodges into the game at first base the next defensive inning.

Just for the sake of argument: In 1950, 1953 and 1957, the NL All-Star team was managed by the Dodgers (I believe they were Shotton, Dressen and Alston). These mamagers may have wanted to give Hodges a break and not use hom too vigously in the ASG. In 1952 and 1955, the NL Manager was Leo Durocher. In 1952 (and 1955 maybe). Leo may have wanted to stick it to the Dodgers by keeping his boy Lockman in there. This may have been Dodgers/Giants gamesmanship going on. The only one that seems odd is 1949, because that game was played at Ebbets Field, but it was played early in Hodges's career. It wouldn't exactly be a precedent if Hodges's mamnagers weren't interested in having him play in the All Star Game.

[iPod]

Just for the sake of argument: In 1950, 1953 and 1957, the NL All-Star team was managed by the Dodgers (I believe they were Shotton, Dressen and Alston). These mamagers may have wanted to give Hodges a break and not use hom too vigously in the ASG. In 1952 and 1955, the NL Manager was Leo Durocher. In 1952 (and 1955 maybe). Leo may have wanted to stick it to the Dodgers by keeping his boy Lockman in there. This may have been Dodgers/Giants gamesmanship going on. The only one that seems odd is 1949, because that game was played at Ebbets Field, but it was played early in Hodges's career. It wouldn't exactly be a precedent if Hodges's mamnagers weren't interested in having him play in the All Star Game.

I had considered the possibility of Durocher spiting Hodges out of a spot in 1952, when his own Lockman played the whole game. And I guess its possible a few of them just fell on days where Hodges really needed a break. But I don't know how much I buy the idea that both Dodger and Giant managers conspired to keep Hodges out of the ASG, for opposite reasons.

[yanks0714]

For most years Hodges hit behind Campanella and Furillo. Hodges was the protection for the rest of the big hitters, not the other way around. He still got his RBI's in spite of that. Adcock and Kluzewski would not have done the same things Hodges did on the Dodgers. Kluzewski was lefthanded, the Dodgers would have faced a lot more lefties then they did, and Snider would not have been the same player. Klu and Adcock were always getting injured, most years Hodges led the league in games played. Put Hodges on the Braves and they probably would have won pennants in 1956 and 1959 as well as 57 and 58 and people would have been talking about a Braves dynasty.Put Hodges on the 1956 Reds in place of an often injured Kluzewski and they probably would have won the pennant. Kluzewsk batted third or cleanup most of his career. Had Hodges done that his numbers would have been much higher and he would already be in the HOF. All those players you mentioned with the exception of Tino Martinez, were just power hitteres, no defense to speak of for the most part very slow. When you compare them through all the things that are looked for in a HOFer they don't compare at all..Since when is hitting the only criteria for election to the HOF?

It said on my post the most similiar hitters, not players. Considering that hitting the primary focus to getting into the HOF unless your name is Maz or Ozzie, it's your hitting thats gets you in....and none of those hitters are in the HOF.

I'm very much aware that Gil batted within the 4 through 6 slots in the order. In the years that Campy was hitting he usually hit clean-up didn't he? So they had Gil hit behind Robinson, Reese, Snider, Campy, and Furillo? Hmmm, because he wasn't as good as they were? Seems to me that hitting behind those guys would afford you a great deal of RBI opportunities.

Gil was a talented defensive 1B, no doubt about it. But the defensive criteria for a 1B is nearly at the bottom of the rung in value. Only LF may have less defensive value. What position do they move the old guys who can still hit but no longer play adequately at their primary position? 1B.

As for the character part of HOF election criteria, if they were to really pay much attention to that the only enshrinees might be Stan Musial, Lou Gehrig, Christy Mathewson, and Cal Ripken. It seems that part of the criteria is to kepp out those such as Joe Jackson and Pete Rose.

Gil was a heck of a nice guy, a great teammate, and a good ball player. I've never heard one person say anything bad about Gil Hodges. He also had the fortune to have played for one of the most beloved teams by their fans ever, the Brooklyn Dodgers. It's only Brooklyn Dodger fans who are trying to get Gil elected to the HOF. I don't see very many other folks trying to get Gil elected.
Like I said before, if Gil had played for the Browns, A's, or Braves (other relocated teams) there would be no push for Gil for the HOF. It's because he was one of the 'Boys of Summer'.

[mandrake]

I'm a die hard Yankee fan. When I hear people say that Roger Maris, Don Mattingly, Ron Guidry, or some other old Yankee should be in the HOF I tell them 'nope, they ain't HOF material.'

I agree with you and respect your opinion; of the 3 I think Mattingly is the closest. What bothers me the most is that the Veteran's committee can 'sneak one ' in on us at times. How in the world can someone be retired for 101 years, yes retired for 101 years, and then be elected. This person never even wore a glove ! Yes, let's put someone out in the field today w/o a glove and see what they can do !!! Did this player play the field better than Billy Cox? Did he hit .400 since the other team did not have gloves??? Let's be serious...the time to put these types into the HOF (if there was indeed an appropriate time) was the 1940's at the latest. At least someone who voted would have actually have seen the player, even if it was decades before.

Now tell me how BID MCPHEE was elected in 2000 !?!? He retired in 1899 !!
He had a .271 avg , never hitting more than 8 hrs in a season. In fact,in 9 seasons, half of his "HOF" career, he hit less than 2 hrs. And the fields used during Bid's career (1882-1899) may not have had fences to stop balls in the outfield. So after 101 years, what clowns put this guy in ?? If he was so good, why did he wait 101 years????? This is why the HOF voting annoys me. Not only would I put Hodges in before good ol' Bid, but I would put in Vada Pinson, Jim Rice,Don Mattingly and a lot of others before I would allow a travesty like Mr. Bid.

[yanks0714]

I agree with you and respect your opinion; of the 3 I think Mattingly is the closest. What bothers me the most is that the Veteran's committee can 'sneak one ' in on us at times. How in the world can someone be retired for 101 years, yes retired for 101 years, and then be elected. This person never even wore a glove ! Yes, let's put someone out in the field today w/o a glove and see what they can do !!! Did this player play the field better than Billy Cox? Did he hit .400 since the other team did not have gloves??? Let's be serious...the time to put these types into the HOF (if there was indeed an appropriate time) was the 1940's at the latest. At least someone who voted would have actually have seen the player, even if it was decades before.

Now tell me how BID MCPHEE was elected in 2000 !?!? He retired in 1899 !!
He had a .271 avg , never hitting more than 8 hrs in a season. In fact,in 9 seasons, half of his "HOF" career, he hit less than 2 hrs. And the fields used during Bid's career (1882-1899) may not have had fences to stop balls in the outfield. So after 101 years, what clowns put this guy in ?? If he was so good, why did he wait 101 years????? This is why the HOF voting annoys me. Not only would I put Hodges in before good ol' Bid, but I would put in Vada Pinson, Jim Rice,Don Mattingly and a lot of others before I would allow a travesty like Mr. Bid.

I tend to agree with you. Putting Bid McPhee in at that point seemed...pointless. To what gain did it accomplish? Nothing really. The 1940's would have been the opportune time to induct him after the 'cream de la crop' had been elected in the first couple elections.

Now understand that the Vets Committe (made up of former players, execs, reporters) selected him, not the BBWAA writers who do the normal voting. The Vets Committe over the years has made gross misjudgements on players, electing some players who do not belong particularly when Frankie Frisch was on the committee.
The Vets Committe has had rule changes that nowadays make it very difficult to elect someone. If Gil is to ever make it he will have to get around those rules.

Bid McPhee was one of the great players of his era. But baseball was drastically different back in those days. Forget the HRs. HRs were not hit with any frequency in those days. Many were inside the park jobs with huge outfields and sometimes without fences as you say. A pioneer of sorts if you want. Bill James, the baseball statistician/historian began the drumbeat for McPhee saying what a shame this guy was bypassed. Look how good he was. He WAS good for his era. Truth is he WAS bypassed. He should have been elected earlier. But by the time they got around to it it was pointless. Most people said who the heck is Bid McPhee? No one really cared that he was elected by then. One of the other problems was that there are a number of players from that era that deserve induction, Some moreso that McPhee. But there is absolutely no sense in electing in this day and age.

What does this have to do with Gil Hodges and the HOF? I guess your point is why was Bid McPhee elected instead of Gil Hodges that year. Well, with Bill James trumpeting his merits I suppose the Vets Committee, many of whom I doubt ever heard of McPhee, just went along with James' suggestion.
McPhee never really had a chance before to be elected to the HOF. Gil Hodges has had numerous opportunities to be elected and has failed to get a sufficient percentage of the vote.
I feel bad saying this because I am old enough to remember Gil Hodges playing at least from about 1858 onward and I remember my Dad talking about him as a solid player. I love reading about the Dodgers, particularly the late 1940's to 1957 version 'Boys of Summer'. I frequent this section of BBF simply because I enjoy reading about them and listening to the Dodger fans. I think Dodger Deb, Kramer47, and the other regulars are incredible to keep the fire burning.
But the truth is...I cannot buy Hodges' inclusion in the HOF.
His numbers just do not support his inclusion. I'm sorry to say that but I'm trying to be objective.

[LouGehrig]

[QUOTE=yanks0714] It's only Brooklyn Dodger fans who are trying to get Gil elected to the HOF. QUOTE]

I think if one read some of my posts, one might conclude that I like the Yankees a little.

Gil Hodges belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Gil Hodges was better that Tony Perez.
Tony Perez is in the Hall of Fame.
Draw your own conclusion.

Sweeping generalizations can cause problems.

[yanks0714]

[QUOTE=yanks0714] It's only Brooklyn Dodger fans who are trying to get Gil elected to the HOF. QUOTE]

I think if one read some of my posts, one might conclude that I like the Yankees a little.

Gil Hodges belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Gil Hodges was better that Tony Perez.
Tony Perez is in the Hall of Fame.
Draw your own conclusion.

Sweeping generalizations can cause problems.

I don't go along with that if so and so is in the HOF then so and so should be in. That's dangerous ground.

I have drawn my own conclusions: Tony Perez was a mistake and GIl Hodges would be a mistake.

[tonypug]

[QUOTE=LouGehrig]

I don't go along with that if so and so is in the HOF then so and so should be in. That's dangerous ground.

I have drawn my own conclusions: Tony Perez was a mistake and GIl Hodges would be a mistake.
The problem is, the precedent has already been set. Future members should get judged by current members standards, not against Ruth, Cobb and Gehrig solely.

[jaykay]

Without question we are all aware that there is nothing the least bit "scientific" about election to the Hall of Fame. Aside from the vital statistics of batting average, runs batted in and home runs (for pitchers, wins/saves, earned run average, strikeouts(?)), there are numerous values which cannot be quantified and which will, in some cases, elicit votes for a candidate, and in other cases deny votes. In a sense, the voting reflects the attitudes of the voters as much as it does the achievements of the players. Beyond all of this, however, is the public relations function of the HOF voting and installation. It is very much in the interest of "The Game" to elect (shall we say) above-average performers, former players whose careers will lend a measure of dignity, often along with good-spirited controversy, to a product that is not only of interest to a very large segment of the population, but one which generates rather enormous sums of money. What I am getting at here is that it is very much to the benefit of the game/business to honor SOMEBODY (perhaps ANYbody) annually in order to bring a positive aspect of its history before the public. There have been (I'm relying on memory right now) very few occasions when NObody was elected. This is clearly unacceptable to the powers-that-be, and helps to explain a voting system that permitted __________, _____________, and _________
to be elected when there were perhaps no players who were truly deserving (according to the "old" standards). A great deal has to do with who is included in a particular group of candidates - the competition, so to speak - and who becomes eligible next year, etc. Luck has a good deal to do with it, not to mention personal animosities, jealousies and a variety of other factors that have nothing to do will baseball ability. But to get back to my hypothesis, all but lost here in a welter of verbiage, there is nothing of benefit to baseball in an election that cannot find anyone worthy of election to its HOF. And that, in my judgment, is why _________, _________ and ________ are among the immortals at Cooperstown. No one should be gnashing teeth if Gil Hodges is finally elected. He was better than the three I have named above, and not as good as dozens of others. Nu?

Play ball.

[iPod]

[QUOTE=yanks0714]
The problem is, the precedent has already been set. Future members should get judged by current members standards, not against Ruth, Cobb and Gehrig solely.

But its absolutely impossible to do that though. The Hall of Fame would become totally worthless if contemporary players were really judged against the lowest tiers. Seriously, how many pitchers in the Hall of Fame are better than Jesse Haines, Red Ruffing, Burleigh Grimes, and Rube Marquard? How many outfielders are better than Lloyd Waner and Joe Kelley? The Hall of Fame, if you really wanted to be consistent, would have to double, maybe even triple in size.

[tonypug]

[QUOTE=tonypug]

But its absolutely impossible to do that though. The Hall of Fame would become totally worthless if contemporary players were really judged against the lowest tiers. Seriously, how many pitchers in the Hall of Fame are better than Jesse Haines, Red Ruffing, Burleigh Grimes, and Rube Marquard? How many outfielders are better than Lloyd Waner and Joe Kelley? The Hall of Fame, if you really wanted to be consistent, would have to double, maybe even triple in size.
And would that be a bad thing to increase the size of the HOF. It would create interest among a larger segment of fans.

[iPod]

I think it would be a bad thing. If you start inducting massive amounts of players to the Hall of Fame, I think it would create less interest, not more, because it wouldn't mean anything any more to be a Hall of Famer. Jack Clark is a better player than several current Hall of Famers: is a Hall of Fame that automatically inducts people like Jack Clark something that you'd get excited about? Will Clark is almost certainly a better player than Hodges: does Will Clark as a surefire, no doubt Hall of Famer make intuitive sense to you? Maybe it does, maybe you want a very large Hall and your desire to put Hodges in results from that preference. I would disagree, but I couldn't say you were being inconsistent.

But the people I really disagree with are the ones who imply without explanation that, of this sea of players outside the Hall, Hodges is somehow an unforgivable outlier, a player who deserves to be alongside Reggie Jackson instead of Reggie Smith, and that his exile from the Hall is an insult to common sense and reality. The fact is there are a LOT of guys who were just as good as Gil Hodges who are outside the Hall of Fame. The arguments in favor of Hodges try only halfheartedly, if at all, to argue about the consistency of the Hall of Fame; why, out of all these dozens of great players, the Hall of Fame should open its doors to Hodges specifically, and not all these other guys. That's the best Hall of Fame argument really: not that Player X fits in sort of well with Y and Z, who barely squeaked into the Hall of Fame, but that X doesn't fit in with A, B, C, D, E, and F, who form the pool of the fringe players outside the Hall. Hodges' case there is pretty weak, in my view.

[yanks0714]

[QUOTE=iPod]
And would that be a bad thing to increase the size of the HOF. It would create interest among a larger segment of fans.

Heck, yes! If we start putting in everybody we feel if so and so is in then so and so should also be in. Where does that stop?

The interest I have in the HOF is that I consider any HOF to be a shrine to the greatest of whatever that HOF is representing. When I was at Cooperstown, I simply ignored the plaques of those I did not consider HOF'ers.

There are good many players outside the HOF whom I feel should be inducted well before we'd get to Gil Hodges.

[Sliding Billy]

I think it would be a bad thing. If you start inducting massive amounts of players to the Hall of Fame, I think it would create less interest, not more, because it wouldn't mean anything any more to be a Hall of Famer.
I agree completely with your entire post, iPod.

Suppose out of fairness the HOF decides to induct everyone above the Kelly-Haines line. Well, even in the unlikely event that the choices were the fairest possible estimates, they'd still be estimates, and the least-qualified players would inevitably fall below the line. Then the new standard would be the Torgeson-Torres line, and so on, with the probabalistic certainty you would wind up with everyone in at the end.

[tonypug]

I think it would be a bad thing. If you start inducting massive amounts of players to the Hall of Fame, I think it would create less interest, not more, because it wouldn't mean anything any more to be a Hall of Famer. Jack Clark is a better player than several current Hall of Famers: is a Hall of Fame that automatically inducts people like Jack Clark something that you'd get excited about? Will Clark is almost certainly a better player than Hodges: does Will Clark as a surefire, no doubt Hall of Famer make intuitive sense to you? Maybe it does, maybe you want a very large Hall and your desire to put Hodges in results from that preference. I would disagree, but I couldn't say you were being inconsistent.

But the people I really disagree with are the ones who imply without explanation that, of this sea of players outside the Hall, Hodges is somehow an unforgivable outlier, a player who deserves to be alongside Reggie Jackson instead of Reggie Smith, and that his exile from the Hall is an insult to common sense and reality. The fact is there are a LOT of guys who were just as good as Gil Hodges who are outside the Hall of Fame. The arguments in favor of Hodges try only halfheartedly, if at all, to argue about the consistency of the Hall of Fame; why, out of all these dozens of great players, the Hall of Fame should open its doors to Hodges specifically, and not all these other guys. That's the best Hall of Fame argument really: not that Player X fits in sort of well with Y and Z, who barely squeaked into the Hall of Fame, but that X doesn't fit in with A, B, C, D, E, and F, who form the pool of the fringe players outside the Hall. Hodges' case there is pretty weak, in my view.
I actually agree with you ro a certain point. If you check my posts, I have never said that Hodges belongs and others don't. I have always stated that if the HOF cleaned out the fringe inductees, I would never be pushing for Hodges. There are some who speak with their heart and not from the facts. The football, Hockey and basketball HOF's recognize the very, very good in their sport, not just the "Gods" of their sport.I believe that when baseball started their HOF they meant to only recognize the "Gods" of baseball. They long ago went away from that plan.

[tonypug]

[QUOTE=tonypug]

Heck, yes! If we start putting in everybody we feel if so and so is in then so and so should also be in. Where does that stop?

The interest I have in the HOF is that I consider any HOF to be a shrine to the greatest of whatever that HOF is representing. When I was at Cooperstown, I simply ignored the plaques of those I did not consider HOF'ers.

There are good many players outside the HOF whom I feel should be inducted well before we'd get to Gil Hodges.
Some of you are over re-acting. There is always a linethat seperates those that should and those that shouldn't be in. Whers is that line now? Ruth, Cobb or Perez-Mazeroski?

[kramer_47]

I've been sitting back reading all the post and of course I agree with some but not others. This thread on Gil as every other thread on him has been an interesting read but I really think this is the year that Gil gets in the HOF. I think that the talk that Gary Carter had with Mike Schmidt and Mike coming away with a much different attitude will open the doors of the HOF not only to Gil but others deserving election such as Ron Santo, Jim Kaat, Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven, Richie Allen, Tommy John just to name a few. If you haven't read the article on Mike Schmidt and how his attitude has changed here it is.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/wires/12/23/2010.ap.bbo.schmidt.hall.of.fame.1394/index.html

[tonypug]

I think there is outside pressure on the Veterans committee this year. Both the HOF and Mlb want to see some of the players who were overlooked to be elected. It makes for good business. Cha ching, cha ching.

[55 chmps]

Hodges deserves to be inducted in the HOF. People consider him as a leader, that's what Pee Wee Reese was and he was inducted. And Hodges had talent to. The HOF is saying they can induct people like Richie Asburn, Bill Mazeroski, Ozzie Smith, and Perz? I don't buy it.

[Sliding Billy]

Hodges deserves to be inducted in the HOF. People consider him as a leader, that's what Pee Wee Reese was and he was inducted. And Hodges had talent to. The HOF is saying they can induct people like Richie Asburn, Bill Mazeroski, Ozzie Smith, and Perz? I don't buy it.
Just for the record, since Tony Perez's name keeps coming up, relative to his time and playing conditions, he was roughly the equal of Hodges offensively, but over a career that was 700 games longer.

[tonypug]

Just for the record, since Tony Perez's name keeps coming up, relative to his time and playing conditions, he was roughly the equal of Hodges offensively, but over a career that was 700 games longer.
I guess that means Hodges numbers are that much greater then Perez', since Gil did his in less games and in a non expansion era.

[kramer_47]

I guess that means Hodges numbers are that much greater then Perez', since Gil did his in less games and in a non expansion era.

Amen Tony, I did a chart for every offensive stat and Gil beat Tony percentage wise in every one except one and we all know Gil was the better fielder. I think with Mike Schmidt coming around others on the committee will also, like Mike said they will leave an empty seat in the Hall for Gil and the others that have passed away too early.

[Sliding Billy]

I guess that means Hodges numbers are that much greater then Perez', since Gil did his in less games and in a non expansion era.
I guess I didn't express myself clearly: Perez and Hodges performed at the same offensive level, but Perez kept it up four years longer, so no, that doesn't mean that Hodges's numbers are that much greater.

[tonypug]

I guess I didn't express myself clearly: Perez and Hodges performed at the same offensive level, but Perez kept it up four years longer, so no, that doesn't mean that Hodges's numbers are that much greater.
What it means is Perez did his numbers in 700 more games. Hodges had a relatively short career due to WWII.

[Sliding Billy]

What it means is Perez did his numbers in 700 more games. Hodges had a relatively short career due to WWII.
The most comprehensive readily available measure of offensive productivity is baseball-reference.com's OPS+: on-base percentage plus slugging percentage, relativized to the league and ballpark. Hodges had career OPS+ of 120 and Perez of 122, in other words, a virtual tie. The fact that Perez maintained this rate substantially longer shows that he was a substantially more valuable batter than Hodges over the course of their careers.

Hodges became a regular at age 24. Perez was a semi-regular at age 24, a regular at 25. Like Hodges, external circumstances kept him out of MLB's purview in his youth.

The biggest difference is at the end of their careers. Hodges had one good year (1959) after age 33; Perez had 3 (1976-78), and two more (1980, 1982) when he was a better-than average hitter, though not for his position and not full-time.

Both of them hung around well past their prime, Hodges playing part-time for four years until he hung it up at age 39, Perez for 6 years, until age 43.

[iPod]

Amen Tony, I did a chart for every offensive stat and Gil beat Tony percentage wise in every one except one and we all know Gil was the better fielder. I think with Mike Schmidt coming around others on the committee will also, like Mike said they will leave an empty seat in the Hall for Gil and the others that have passed away too early.

Their counting numbers are similar, but Perez played in both a league and park that was tougher on hitters. Per season, they had similar value, but Perez played longer.

I agree with you though that Hodges definitely gets in in 2007. It'll be a huge mistake but it'll happen. Players this controversial always eventually get in. It's just the way the system is set up. It suffers from the same problems that the double jeopardy law was meant to address within the legal process. If my side wins the debate, you can just call for more debates. If your side wins, I don't get to do anything about it. That ultimately is what is diluting the Hall of Fame nowadays, in my opinion.

[tonypug]

The most comprehensive readily available measure of offensive productivity is baseball-reference.com's OPS+: on-base percentage plus slugging percentage, relativized to the league and ballpark. Hodges had career OPS+ of 120 and Perez of 122, in other words, a virtual tie. The fact that Perez maintained this rate substantially longer shows that he was a substantially more valuable batter than Hodges over the course of their careers.

Hodges became a regular at age 24. Perez was a semi-regular at age 24, a regular at 25. Like Hodges, external circumstances kept him out of MLB's purview in his youth.

The biggest difference is at the end of their careers. Hodges had one good year (1959) after age 33; Perez had 3 (1976-78), and two more (1980, 1982) when he was a better-than average hitter, though not for his position and not full-time.

Both of them hung around well past their prime, Hodges playing part-time for four years until he hung it up at age 39, Perez for 6 years, until age 43.
Billy, because Perez was a liitle better then Hodges, after both passed their prime over more games, you think that makes Perez more worthy?. What external circumstances kept Perez from making the Reds and becoming a regular?

[kramer_47]

The most comprehensive readily available measure of offensive productivity is baseball-reference.com's OPS+: on-base percentage plus slugging percentage, relativized to the league and ballpark. Hodges had career OPS+ of 120 and Perez of 122, in other words, a virtual tie. The fact that Perez maintained this rate substantially longer shows that he was a substantially more valuable batter than Hodges over the course of their careers.

Hodges became a regular at age 24. Perez was a semi-regular at age 24, a regular at 25. Like Hodges, external circumstances kept him out of MLB's purview in his youth.

The biggest difference is at the end of their careers. Hodges had one good year (1959) after age 33; Perez had 3 (1976-78), and two more (1980, 1982) when he was a better-than average hitter, though not for his position and not full-time.

Both of them hung around well past their prime, Hodges playing part-time for four years until he hung it up at age 39, Perez for 6 years, until age 43.

Gil was penalized for playing in Ebbets Field that's why his OPS+ wasn't higher. It isn't the size of the park it is how far the home runs go, how do we know how far Gil's homers went, with OPS+ they are just guessing the homers just made it over the fence but they could have gone 50 feet more and been out of any park. Gil batted 4th-7th in his career protecting the other Dodgers greats and most of the time had very little protection behind him but still knocked in 100 runs 7 years straight. Gil played on grass fields and played when there was only 16 teams, Tony played on artificial turf in a much more diluted major league with many more teams. The Dodgers faced mostly righthand pitching because they only had one lefthand hitter, take all things into consideration and Gil's OPS+ would have been in the 130's or even 140's.

[tonypug]

Ebbets Field was short in right field-297 feet. Down the line in left it was 340 feet. From my own personal observations and newspaper reports. the majority of Hodges home runs went well into the stands.This is the hottest debate over any player that I can ever remember.

[Sliding Billy]

Gil was penalized for playing in Ebbets Field that's why his OPS+ wasn't higher. It isn't the size of the park it is how far the home runs go, how do we know how far Gil's homers went, with OPS+ they are just guessing the homers just made it over the fence but they could have gone 50 feet more and been out of any park. Gil batted 4th-7th in his career protecting the other Dodgers greats and most of the time had very little protection behind him but still knocked in 100 runs 7 years straight. Gil played on grass fields and played when there was only 16 teams, Tony played on artificial turf in a much more diluted major league with many more teams. The Dodgers faced mostly righthand pitching because they only had one lefthand hitter, take all things into consideration and Gil's OPS+ would have been in the 130's or even 140's.

Ebbets Field was short in right field-297 feet. Down the line in left it was 340 feet. From my own personal observations and newspaper reports. the majority of Hodges home runs went well into the stands.This is the hottest debate over any player that I can ever remember.

The purpose of the ballpark adjustment to OPS+ is to standardize individual offensive contributions to team wins by taking into account the run-scoring environment of the park. If teams average 5 runs a game in Ballpark A and 4 runs a game in Ballpark B, then it stands to reason that a run created in Ballpark B has more value than one created in Ballpark A: You don't need as many to win. Consequently, a hitter in Ballpark A has to put up bigger numbers to be comparable to a hitter in Ballpark B. The park adjustment corrects for this, with the result that predictions of team performance based on individual batting become more accurate.

The ballpark adjustment is not a failed attempt to be fair to hitters by discounting the amount the ballpark favors or hinders the hitter. Usually, of course, a park that favors hitters generally will favor a particular hitter, and it will amount to the same thing, but not always. Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds were both pitchers' parks, despite their short right field fences. So even though Babe Ruth's and Mel Ott's home run totals were helped by their parks, they still got an OPS+ bump, not a penalty, and quite properly so, because their home runs contributed more to winning at home than on the road.

So what would have happened to Hodges's Ebbets Field home runs had he hit them elsewhere doesn't come into the equation at all. You don't get 1.3 runs for a solo homer just because it's long. If he had hit his 370 home runs while playing in, say, Yankee Stadium (God forbid), his OPS+ would have been higher, because Yankee Stadium was a pitchers' park, while Ebbets Field was the most batter-friendly park in the NL. But he didn't. He hit them (praise God) while playing in Ebbets Field, and glorious as they were, they didn't do as much to help the team win as they would have in a neutral park. Though of course they did plenty as it was.

The OPS+ adjustment isn't an attempt to play "what if?" It's an attempt to estimate the actual effects of actual batting under actual playing conditions. If OPS+ were tweaked to correct for, say, park platoon advantage, it would not be as accurate a predictor of team wins based on individual performance, which is its role.

(By the same token, the Dodger pitching staff is generally underrated because of Ebbets Field's park effects. Poders's ERA title and Drysdale's ERA in Ebbets in '57 are two of the most remarkable Dodger accomplishments of the period.)

Similarly, there is no reason to give Hodges a boost because of the "no lefties against Brooklyn" rule. If Hodges hit lefties better than righties and faced few lefties, well, then, that diminished his effectiveness as a hitter, just as the rule enhanced Snider's effectiveness. A home run by Snider counted just as much as a home run by anyone else and did just as much to help the Dodgers win. Just as a 3-6-3 double play helps a team the same amount whether the first baseman is right- or left-handed.

As for Hodges being hurt by his place in the batting order, I don't know of any studies showing a relationship between where a given player hits and how well he hits. It's an interesting topic, so if you know of any, please let me know. It may well be that Gil took one for the team by hitting lower in the order. There's certainly lots of anecdotal evidence about the value of protection in the lineup. On the other hand, I can't see a battery deciding, "Well, let's go easy on Hodges, because Snider is coming up next." But whatever the actual effects are, it doesn't matter. A run is a run, and it helps your team just as much whether it's created in the seventh or third slot. Somebody has to hit at the end of the power sequence, and Alston felt Gil could help his team best there.

As far as dilution of the league is concerned, certainly in the early years of expansion, overall league quality went down, due in part to the horrible deal the expansion teams cut with their older brothers. Hodges, not Perez, was the beneficiary, however, because Gil was able to play a couple of more years for the Mets after LA cut him loose, while Perez was not yet on the scene.

When Perez did show up, he didn't come alone, but in the company of a host of other African and Latin American players. The integration rate increased throughout the 60s and into the 70s, and the recruitment of Latin players really got under way. Again, I don't know of any hard studies comparing the quality of the the leagues in the 50s and 70s, but if you compare the rosters of the two eras, I'm sure you will find a differential of African and Latin American players that overwhelms the 50-player increase in 1962. I count 13 African- Latin-American NL regulars in 1957, 34 in 1975.

(Just as the Dodgers turned common justice into league domination with players like Robinson, Newcombe, Campanella, and Gilliam, the Reds built a dominating team by taking the lead with Perez, Geronimo, Concepcion, in addition to Griffey, Foster, and Morgan.)

The argument that Perez was playing in a softer league doesn't jibe with my memories or with the data as I see it. For pete's sake, Frank Torre was the starting first baseman on the 1957 pennant winner.

Perez played on astroturf and Hodges didn't? I don't honestly see how that changes anything. Each of them played on the same surface as their opponents. It isn't as if Perez would have been asked to bunt a lot if they'd been playing on grass, or that he hit a lot of skittery ground balls. Besides, even if it did give him an advantage, having to play on it should be penalty enough. ;)

[Sliding Billy]

Billy, because Perez was a liitle better then Hodges, after both passed their prime over more games, you think that makes Perez more worthy?. What external circumstances kept Perez from making the Reds and becoming a regular?
Perez was signed by the Reds while working at a sugar factory in Cuba. Obviously if it had been 1950, he'd've never been signed at all.

That's a good point: if Perez was a marginal player for a few more years than Hodges was a marginal player, who cares, really? I have Perez with 12 prime seasons, Hodges with 10. It wasn't that Tony was surging ahead in his early 40s, it's that Gil's productive career came to an early end.

[iPod]

Perez was signed by the Reds while working at a sugar factory in Cuba. Obviously if it had been 1950, he'd've never been signed at all.

That's a good point: if Perez was a marginal player for a few more years than Hodges was a marginal player, who cares, really? I have Perez with 12 prime seasons, Hodges with 10. It wasn't that Tony was surging ahead in his early 40s, it's that Gil's productive career came to an early end.

Perez had 9778 AB in his career, Hodges had 7030. Through age 36, Perez had 7429 AB and an OPS+ of 128, higher than his career 122 and Hodges' 120. Further, Perez had had two seasons, 1970 and 1973, which in my opinion were probably better than anything Hodges was able to do. For what it's worth, Perez had 3 seasons of 30 or more win shares, while Hodges never had one, and in their top 5 consecutive seasons, Perez accumulated 144 win shares to Hodges' 129.

But again, why are we talking about Tony Perez? Why aren't we talking about these guys?

Don Mattingly
Will Clark
Keith Hernandez
Dick Allen
Norm Cash
Mickey Vernon
Boog Powell
Cecil Cooper
Steve Garvey
Ted Simmons
Bill Freehan
Thurman Munson
Elston Howard
Bobby Grich
Lou Whitaker
Joe Gordon
Willie Randolph
Ron Santo
Stan Hack
Darrell Evans
Sal Bando
Ken Boyer
Graig Nettles
Alan Trammell
Maury Wills
Jim Fregosi
Vern Stephens
Bill Dahlen
Minnie Minoso
Tim Raines
Charlie Keller
Frank Howard
Jim Rice
Jimmy Wynn
Dale Murphy
Wally Berger
Vada Pinson
Cesar Cedeno
Dave Parker
Bobby Bonds
Bobby Murcer
Andre Dawson
Reggie Smith
Tony Oliva
Dwight Evans
Rusty Staub
Ken Singleton

Hodges seems to fit in pretty well with that group of non-Hall of Famers. Why does he get so much support and not these guys, aside from Santo, Dawson, Rice, and maybe Mattingly and Wills? How do you pluck Hodges out of that group and say "Hmm, he doesn't below there."?

[Sliding Billy]

But again, why are we talking about Tony Perez? Why aren't we talking about these guys?

Beats me. I guess it's my fault for picking up on the Perez comparison and beating it into the ground. Perez and Hodges are similar players and at first glance the advantage might seem to lie with Hodges, so the fact that Tony's in and Gil's out is a red flag to his supporters. Your point about their totals at age 36 refutes that more effectively and succinctly than my efforts. I was trying to cover a wide range of issues--that would certainly come up in a discussion of your list--through a close comparison of two players who were affected by all of them.

[tonypug]

Ipod, there are at least several players on your list that do deserve induction into the HOF, based on the criteria that is being used. Rice, Santo, Boyer, Pinson are just a few who jump out. They should go through the different periods of time and bring in those that should be in. The HOF long ago went away from electing only the "Gods" of baseball.

[Shotgun Shuba]

For those who are supporting Gil, my question is this: What significance would it have for you? It seems that you are saying that making the Hall is not such a special achievement. If you play in a league where everybody gets a trophy at the end of the year, then who really feels wonderful about the award. It's a hollow achievement. Hodges had the respect of his teammates, fans, rivals, sportswiters and family. That's an achievement to crow about.

[tonypug]

For those who are supporting Gil, my question is this: What significance would it have for you? It seems that you are saying that making the Hall is not such a special achievement. If you play in a league where everybody gets a trophy at the end of the year, then who really feels wonderful about the award. It's a hollow achievement. Hodges had the respect of his teammates, fans, rivals, sportswiters and family. That's an achievement to crow about.
Making the HOF is a special achievment. What I am saying is that the HOF is not just for the "Gods" of baseball, which I think was the origonal intent of the HOF, which has long since been abandoned. For those of you so intent about keeping Hodges out, why has that become so important. To say Hodges is not desrving is hollow when you look at the entire body of work that makes up the HOF.One last time I have never compared Hodges to Gehrig, Ruth or Cobb. He does however compare favorably with many that are in. Others who are not in, also compare favorably, and should also be in. There is nothing wrong with that.

[iPod]

Ipod, there are at least several players on your list that do deserve induction into the HOF, based on the criteria that is being used. Rice, Santo, Boyer, Pinson are just a few who jump out. They should go through the different periods of time and bring in those that should be in. The HOF long ago went away from electing only the "Gods" of baseball.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can't just pluck 3 or 4 of the guys on that list and put them into the Hall of Fame, unless you want to abandon even the pretext of consistency and fairness. You'd have to induct a lot of people from that list, if not most of them. The problem is there are a lot of guys on that list that, meaning honestly no offense, weren't as popular as Hodges and aren't thought about very much, and thus aren't intuitively thought of as Hall of Famers, although they had just as much value as Hodges did.

You and I have already touched on this though. I put Vada Pinson on my list as an example of a guy that, to me, is clearly not a Hall of Famer based on how tight I think the Hall should be. I also am opposed to Jim Rice, although he has a following. The fact that you support them offers more evidence you just want a looser Hall than I want. Beyond saying I disagree with your opinion of how the Hall should be, there's not much to debate there, but I appreciate that you're being more consistent about Hodges than many people are.

[tonypug]

I guess what I'm saying is that you can't just pluck 3 or 4 of the guys on that list and put them into the Hall of Fame, unless you want to abandon even the pretext of consistency and fairness. You'd have to induct a lot of people from that list, if not most of them. The problem is there are a lot of guys on that list that, meaning honestly no offense, weren't as popular as Hodges and aren't thought about very much, and thus aren't intuitively thought of as Hall of Famers, although they had just as much value as Hodges did.

You and I have already touched on this though. I put Vada Pinson on my list as an example of a guy that, to me, is clearly not a Hall of Famer based on how tight I think the Hall should be. I also am opposed to Jim Rice, although he has a following. The fact that you support them offers more evidence you just want a looser Hall than I want. Beyond saying I disagree with your opinion of how the Hall should be, there's not much to debate there, but I appreciate that you're being more consistent about Hodges than many people are.
Although Gil Hodges was my favorite player. I have tried to look at this logically, not with my heart. As I have said with the parameters already set, I would be in favor of an expanded HOF. I understand though of you who want a stricter HOF. My feeling is the horse is already out of the barn, you can't kick guys out, so lets get some more deserving players in. Just my look on things.

[kramer_47]

Perez had 9778 AB in his career, Hodges had 7030. Through age 36, Perez had 7429 AB and an OPS+ of 128, higher than his career 122 and Hodges' 120. Further, Perez had had two seasons, 1970 and 1973, which in my opinion were probably better than anything Hodges was able to do. For what it's worth, Perez had 3 seasons of 30 or more win shares, while Hodges never had one, and in their top 5 consecutive seasons, Perez accumulated 144 win shares to Hodges' 129.

But again, why are we talking about Tony Perez? Why aren't we talking about these guys?

Don Mattingly
Will Clark
Keith Hernandez
Dick Allen
Norm Cash
Mickey Vernon
Boog Powell
Cecil Cooper
Steve Garvey
Ted Simmons
Bill Freehan
Thurman Munson
Elston Howard
Bobby Grich
Lou Whitaker
Joe Gordon
Willie Randolph
Ron Santo
Stan Hack
Darrell Evans
Sal Bando
Ken Boyer
Graig Nettles
Alan Trammell
Maury Wills
Jim Fregosi
Vern Stephens
Bill Dahlen
Minnie Minoso
Tim Raines
Charlie Keller
Frank Howard
Jim Rice
Jimmy Wynn
Dale Murphy
Wally Berger
Vada Pinson
Cesar Cedeno
Dave Parker
Bobby Bonds
Bobby Murcer
Andre Dawson
Reggie Smith
Tony Oliva
Dwight Evans
Rusty Staub
Ken Singleton

Hodges seems to fit in pretty well with that group of non-Hall of Famers. Why does he get so much support and not these guys, aside from Santo, Dawson, Rice, and maybe Mattingly and Wills? How do you pluck Hodges out of that group and say "Hmm, he doesn't below there."?

This is a nice list of very good ballplayers with some nice stats but there are only about 10 of them that have any chance at all of making the HOF. The HOF is not stats alone, every player is unique in there own way and the way they contributed to their team, most of the players you listed never won a pennant no less a World Series. Gil was a big part of the best team in the National league from 1948-59, please don't bring up that other players were interchangeable with Gil Gil was there and he was their power guy, he was a big part of the Dodgers at bat and in the field. Gil gets support because we feel strongly that he was slighted over the last 30 years, Gil qualifies for the HOF on all 5 of the criteria to get elected.

[iPod]

This is a nice list of very good ballplayers with some nice stats but there are only about 10 of them that have any chance at all of making the HOF. The HOF is not stats alone, every player is unique in there own way and the way they contributed to their team, most of the players you listed never won a pennant no less a World Series. Gil was a big part of the best team in the National league from 1948-59, please don't bring up that other players were interchangeable with Gil Gil was there and he was their power guy, he was a big part of the Dodgers at bat and in the field. Gil gets support because we feel strongly that he was slighted over the last 30 years, Gil qualifies for the HOF on all 5 of the criteria to get elected.

I agree almost all of those players have almost no shot of getting into the Hall of Fame. My point is that Hodges should also be on this list of players with no shot of getting into the Hall of Fame, but he was a fan favorite who died early and played on a tremendously popular team, so he gets support anyway. I look at that and I say it's unfair to the guys who are on that list. Just going down the list, though, there are plenty of guys who were key players on great teams: Boog Powell was on the great Oriole teams in the late 60s and 70s, Garvey was on the Dodgers in the late 70s, Munson and Howard obviously were key players on great Yankee teams, Whitaker and Trammell were on some great Tiger teams including the historic '84 squad, Wills and Frank Howard were on the '60s Dodgers, Nettles was on the '70s Yankees, Freehan caught for that great '68 Tiger team, Joe Gordon and Charlie Keller were on the '40s Yankees teams, Bando was on the '70s A's teams, Ken Boyer was on the '60s Cardinals... several others were on at least one pennant winner, like Clark, Cooper, Oliva, Rice, Evans, etc.