TODAY is the DAY!

[bhss89]

Haven't posted much in this forum, and yes, I'm an evil LA fan, but I thought some of you might enjoy this article from our local paper. I live in Evansville, IN, about 30 minutes from Petersburg, IN where Mr. Hodges was born. I have always been a very big Gil Hodges fan and have admired the way he both played the game and lived his life. A great ballplayer and an even greater man, he is most deserving of enshrinement this year!

Let's hope the VC have their heads on straight later this afternoon . . .


http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/feb/27/it-just-may-be-time-for-gil-to-reach-hall/

[DODGER DEB]

Thank you for posting that nice piece about OUR #14!

The voting results should be released by the VC by mid afternoon.

Keep your fingers (and toes) crossed. A little prayer wouldn't hurt either.

c.

[DODGER DEB]

Here is the VC story in the NY Daily News this AM...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/501051p-422516c.html

c.

[DODGER DEB]

The VC voting results are scheduled to be announced at 2PM EST.

c.

[DODGER DEB]

I'm told that NO ONE was voted in by the VC Committee this year.

What is their problem? That's just awful! :mad: :mad: :mad:

c.

[bhss89]

What a load of bologna! 50 votes equaling 61%, which unfortunately puts Gil 14% shy of induction.
I must be clueless as to what the VC is looking for, 'cause I just don't get it.

:(

:(

So we're waiting until '09 I guess?

[DODGER DEB]

Here's the link to the HOF release......

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/news/2007/07027b.htm

c.

[OCDan]

Here is the rub. I think, IMO, that the VC is trying to hold down membership in this exclusive club for a couple of reasons. First, they have taken some flack in the past for some of their induction selections. Second, the HoF voters as a whole seem to get some flack for some of its recent selections.

However, this wouldn't explain the votes for Doug Harvey. I've always contended that umpires should not be in the HoF.

Don't get me wrong, Hodges was great, and one can really be compared ONLY to those who played during his career. That said, I think the HoF is reserved for the truly great. Campy and Snider, sure. Not so sure about Hodges. Very, very close w/him. IMHO, I would get rid of 75% of what is in the hall. One method that is a good gauge is mention player X and see what kind of response you truly get, not just haters. I mention Jim Rice. Do 6 guys out of 10 say HoF or 9-10 guys out of 10. If there is debate, most likely the guy is not truly HoF material.

All bias aside, I try to keep the HoF for the truly great. This is the highest honor. Not something bestowed because of wrongs in the past to a player or players, not announcers/writers/umpires/officials/etc.

IMHO, you need to be elected within 3 years of eligibility and with 85% (although I would prefer 90%) of the vote. I realize this means that Cooperstown might go several years without an induction ceremony, therefore starving a lot of businesses up there. However, if the HoF is to mean anything, selection into it should be very difficult, i.e. the highest standards.

Look, basketball and hockey elect people from all sorts of places and levels. Heck, John Wooden was elected twice to the BBall HoF. What a joke. Football. Well, they have a convoluted 2-tier votong system that makes everyone argue in the end.

Just a humble baseball fan's $000.02 worth.

[MattM]

Here is the rub. I think, IMO, that the VC is trying to hold down membership in this exclusive club for a couple of reasons. First, they have taken some flack in the past for some of their induction selections. Second, the HoF voters as a whole seem to get some flack for some of its recent selections.

However, this wouldn't explain the votes for Doug Harvey. I've always contended that umpires should not be in the HoF.

Don't get me wrong, Hodges was great, and one can really be compared ONLY to those who played during his career. That said, I think the HoF is reserved for the truly great. Campy and Snider, sure. Not so sure about Hodges. Very, very close w/him. IMHO, I would get rid of 75% of what is in the hall. One method that is a good gauge is mention player X and see what kind of response you truly get, not just haters. I mention Jim Rice. Do 6 guys out of 10 say HoF or 9-10 guys out of 10. If there is debate, most likely the guy is not truly HoF material.

All bias aside, I try to keep the HoF for the truly great. This is the highest honor. Not something bestowed because of wrongs in the past to a player or players, not announcers/writers/umpires/officials/etc.

IMHO, you need to be elected within 3 years of eligibility and with 85% (although I would prefer 90%) of the vote. I realize this means that Cooperstown might go several years without an induction ceremony, therefore starving a lot of businesses up there. However, if the HoF is to mean anything, selection into it should be very difficult, i.e. the highest standards.

Look, basketball and hockey elect people from all sorts of places and levels. Heck, John Wooden was elected twice to the BBall HoF. What a joke. Football. Well, they have a convoluted 2-tier votong system that makes everyone argue in the end.

Just a humble baseball fan's $000.02 worth.

If you read the criteria for the vetrans HOF vote, Hodges gets in on 13 of the 15 requirements. Gil might not have been the greatest 1'st baseman ever, but he was a true teammate, a great manager, and a gentlemen on the field. Those are some of the criteria for induction to the Hall. Maybe if some of the Vets got off their high horses, and looked beyond statistics, there would be more deserving players in the Hall. Here is something that I just wrote on another group I belong to.

The Baseball Hall of Fame - once again, the Hall has decided to ignore Gil Hodges, and deny him entry into their "selective fraternity." Hodges, a life-time Dodger, who was beloved by the fans of Brooklyn & Washington, was third in votes in 2007 with 60% (To be elected, the player must get 75%). Although not the "greatest" statistically, Hodges fits the criteria for 13 of the Halls 15 requirements for elegibility. Hey, instead of electing players who are most remembered for one specific thing (Mazeroski), why not look at the guys who gave meaning to the word team player.

Gil, inspite of all the nonsense and exclusion, the borough of Brooklyn, and state of New York will never forget you and what you did not just for baseball, but for the community as a whole. In this Brooklynite now living in Long Island, you are a true gentlemen, and Hall of Famer to all of us!

[OCDan]

Hodges meets 13 of the 15 requirements, but again, not all 15. Even then, if you meet the requirements, you need to be elected. This is not something that is just granted to you. Hey, I agree that Maz should not be in. But, as I mentioned there are a ton of people that shouldn't be in. Hodges is a lot like Rice. He put up some BIG numbers in his era. However, is he worthy of the highest honor. Not so sure.

Maybe what needs to be done is review the whole process. Maybe we need to understand what Cooperstown is all about...money and tourism. Look when I think about a HoF, I think the greatest ever. We talk about how the rate against their contemporaries. Heck, HoFamers need to transcend the game. Men like Jackie, Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Aaron, and Williams. The truly great Joe Morgan? Not so sure. I know you guys feel strongly about Hodges, but I am just trying to get at what some of the voters may be thinking. I also know my Morgan remark might draw some ire.

Hey, I am a traditionalist and the HoF isn't a place for the close, but not greatest players. Again, I realize in my universe the number of plaques at Cooperstown might be about 50, not really the best for tourism. However, when you look at those 50, you know you are looking at the greatest to have ever played. You might quibble about 1 or 2 being there or not, but that would be all.

[DODGER DEB]

If the HOF is looking for Money and Tourism (and there appears to much truth to that way of thinking) then leaving GIL out is the dumbest thing they have ever done. They obviously do not have a clue as to the kinds of crowds they would attract inducting GIL into the HOF. Tons of people just from the NY/Brooklyn area would over flow that place...and spend money doing so. What do they attract by electing no one?

It seems to me that the group running that place needs to be seriously overhauled and replaced with some clear thinking baseball people. Perhaps then WE could count on them to honor serious baseball fans, of which there are millions in this country and around the world, by honoring OUR heros.

To keep doing what they are doing just irritates and upsets fans. Somehow, I don't think that is the reason they were elected to the Board of the HOF. Baseball fans are NOT interested in what they think.....but, they should most definitely be interested in what WE think about the process!

I also think that there should be an election every year.

c.

[Brownie31]

A truly stupid and vile decision!:mad:

Brownie31

[MattM]

If the HOF is looking for Money and Tourism (and there appears to much truth to that way of thinking) then leaving GIL out is the dumbest thing they have ever done. They obviously do not have a clue as to the kinds of crowds they would attract inducting GIL into the HOF. Tons of people just from the NY/Brooklyn area would over flow that place...and spend money doing so. What do they attract by electing no one?

It seems to me that the group running that place needs to be seriously overhauled and replaced with some clear thinking baseball people. Perhaps then WE could count on them to honor serious baseball fans, of which there are millions in this country and around the world, by honoring OUR heros.

To keep doing what they are doing just irritates and upsets fans. Somehow, I don't think that is the reason they were elected to the Board of the HOF. Baseball fans are NOT interested in what they think.....but, they should most definitely be interested in what WE think about the process!

I also think that there should be an election every year.

c.

I was just listening to Rob Dibble on XM, and he pretty much had similar sentiments. To not elect a vetran one year is one thing, but to not elect for 3 years? By no means am I saying let everyone in, but Santo and Hodges were the likely choices to go in as players. Dibble seemed pretty angered that neither were elected. He then brought up Mazeroski's campaign in the early 90's to get him elected, and how that was a bit ridiculous that he buddied up with other HOF Vets so that maybe he could influence their vote.

A caller brought up a good point in that, the "older era players" (40s,50s,60,s) are moving on to the next life, and now you get these newer players who might not know who Gil Hodges is, or that Doug Harvey is considered as one of the greatest umpires ever. The fear is that the golden-era players will be voted on less and less until they lost to time itself.

Dibble also said how alot of players in the Hall and on the ballot (Newcombe), said they would take their votes and give them to Gil since he was such an integral part of the Dodger/Senators/Mets ballclubs. Newc's name was also brought up since he's the only player to win ROY/CY/GG in same season.

You can't vote soley on statistics as there are other reasons that we have discussed, in being welcomed to the Hall.

Honestly, I'd love to know who each of the voting veterans put an "x" next to. I'd hope that Berra, and anyone who befriended Gil gave him their support.

Deb, if you happen to talk to Gil's wife, tell her that he is a true hall of famer in this 24 year olds opinion.

Much like the old slogan goes, "Wait 'till next year!"

[MATHA531]

It's a damn shame; that's for sure.

But at least a certain other individual, whom we all despise didn't get in...that would have really been like a shot between the eyes.

[Dodgerfan1]

Here is the rub. I think, IMO, that the VC is trying to hold down membership in this exclusive club for a couple of reasons. First, they have taken some flack in the past for some of their induction selections. Second, the HoF voters as a whole seem to get some flack for some of its recent selections.

However, this wouldn't explain the votes for Doug Harvey. I've always contended that umpires should not be in the HoF.

Don't get me wrong, Hodges was great, and one can really be compared ONLY to those who played during his career. That said, I think the HoF is reserved for the truly great. Campy and Snider, sure. Not so sure about Hodges. Very, very close w/him. IMHO, I would get rid of 75% of what is in the hall. One method that is a good gauge is mention player X and see what kind of response you truly get, not just haters. I mention Jim Rice. Do 6 guys out of 10 say HoF or 9-10 guys out of 10. If there is debate, most likely the guy is not truly HoF material.

All bias aside, I try to keep the HoF for the truly great. This is the highest honor. Not something bestowed because of wrongs in the past to a player or players, not announcers/writers/umpires/officials/etc.

IMHO, you need to be elected within 3 years of eligibility and with 85% (although I would prefer 90%) of the vote. I realize this means that Cooperstown might go several years without an induction ceremony, therefore starving a lot of businesses up there. However, if the HoF is to mean anything, selection into it should be very difficult, i.e. the highest standards.

Look, basketball and hockey elect people from all sorts of places and levels. Heck, John Wooden was elected twice to the BBall HoF. What a joke. Football. Well, they have a convoluted 2-tier votong system that makes everyone argue in the end.

Just a humble baseball fan's $000.02 worth.


I almost COMPLETELY agree with everything you just said, OCDan!! Bravo! Especially the part about the HOF being the highest honor baseball can bestow and it should be reserved for the TRULY GREAT players. You are so right, if there has to be an argument for a player's induction, he probably doesn't belong.

[KCGHOST]

I was just listening to Rob Dibble .....


Personally i wouldn't admit to such a thing. Dibble hasn't the faintest idea what is going on. The only thing he knows about the HoF is that he has to pay to get in.

[Brownie31]

It's a damn shame; that's for sure.

But at least a certain other individual, whom we all despise didn't get in...that would have really been like a shot between the eyes.

In other words: First the bad news then the good news.

Brownie31

[Dodgerfan1]

This Hall of Fame thing has gotten out of hand. More like a popularity contest than a true measure of a player's greatness. It's like in England where every celebrity who asks nicely is knighted. 'Sir' Elton John?? 'Sir' Sean Connery?? 'Sir' Paul McCartney?? Hey, I like those guys for what they do for a living, but KNIGHTHOOD?? I think maybe the UK should start holding elections like the HOF does. What the hell? Maybe if Gil Hodges doesn't make the HOF, his family can lobby for posthumous knighthood.

[MattM]

Personally i wouldn't admit to such a thing. Dibble hasn't the faintest idea what is going on. The only thing he knows about the HoF is that he has to pay to get in.

Maybe, but he made some good points, and his sentiments were similar to that of people on this board.

[The Real McCoy]

To paraphrase Edmund Burke, "In order for injustice to triumph, it is only necessary that good men do nothing."

If these doddering fools, masquarading as a committee, cannot come up with a worthy candidate for induction for three straight years, the logical assumption is that the problem lies not with the potential inductees but with those making the judgement.

If, as might be the case, they are trying to ammend preceived past mistakes thru inaction and, as a result, fostering injustice, then it's time to sweep this entire confederacy of dunces out and start, once more, with a new committee.

Too many good and worthy players are being deprived of desserved recognition.

[MattM]

From ESPN.com (Another reason why I dislike Joe Morgan)

The Hall's board will next meet March 13 in Cooperstown. Hall of Fame second baseman Joe Morgan, the Hall's vice chairman, said there would be discussions at that meeting about the Veterans Committee but took umbrage to a suggestion by one questioner that the Hall of Famers themselves may not be the best judges for who qualifies.

"I take offense to anyone saying the players aren't qualified to vote," Morgan said. "I don't think the writers over the years made mistake after mistake, but a lot of the players on this list went through 15 years of writers' voting without getting elected, so why get on the Hall of Famers for not electing someone?"

When asked if there should be a change from the 75 percent requirement for election, Morgan replied, "Do we lower our standards to get more people in? My answer would be no."

One area Morgan acknowledged where the Hall of Famers have the most difficulty is assessing the composite ballot.

"The most difficult thing for me is to look at executives and know how much of a contribution they made to the game," Morgan said. "It is difficult to evaluate executives on the Hall of Fame level."

[ColtscorrAL]

Sorry to hear that Gil was denied for another year. I think he's truly a worthy candidate. :mad:

[Shotgun Shuba]

For some reason Hodges has become the "test case" for HOF eligibility. Both sides, for and against, have dug in their heels and seem willing to make this a true battle. I feel sad for those who had such high hopes. I felt it really would be an uphill struggle and would have been suprised had he made it. I think his early death has really hurt his chances because many people seem to have forgotten about him and moved on to different candidates. That's too bad. Perhaps the people of Brooklyn or it's sister city New York can arrive at some other way to truly honor him beyond the tarnished HOF. I have screamed many times that the new Mets park should be Hodges Field but nobody listens to me.
I wonder what he would say about all this?

[MATHA531]

For some reason Hodges has become the "test case" for HOF eligibility. Both sides, for and against, have dug in their heels and seem willing to make this a true battle. I feel sad for those who had such high hopes. I felt it really would be an uphill struggle and would have been suprised had he made it. I think his early death has really hurt his chances because many people seem to have forgotten about him and moved on to different candidates. That's too bad. Perhaps the people of Brooklyn or it's sister city New York can arrive at some other way to truly honor him beyond the tarnished HOF. I have screamed many times that the new Mets park should be Hodges Field but nobody listens to me.
I wonder what he would say about all this?

In this day and age, when are ballparks or arenas named for human beings??? Corporate sponsorship brings in millions and millions...besides can you imagine the screaming that would have occurred if the Met ballpark had been named for Gil instead of Jackie Robinson (despite the fact that at least Gil managed and played for the Mets).......

[Shotgun Shuba]

After I last posted I remembered that I used to see a Gil Hodges Field from the BQE? Belt Parkway? It was somewhere on the way to the Verazzano. It looked like a little league field. St Joseph's College in Indiana named their field after Gil. There is a Gil Hodges Field in Brentwood, LI and the Marine Parkway bridge in the Rockaways is named after him. That's a good start, I am sure there are many more.

[LouGehrig]

Gil Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball from 1949-1957. Only Ted Kluszewski for a few seasons in the NL was as good, but while Ted was a better hitter, he was not close as a fielder. Yes, Ted had a higher fielding percentage, which is an excellent illustration of how statistics must be interpreted accurately.

Musial played a lot of outfield from 1949-1957.

In the AL, only the Moose and Vic Power were consistent, and they didn't start until around 1954.

You cannot compare players of different eras. In 1975, Jim Palmer pitched 10 shut outs. Are there no pitchers today as good as Palmer was then? It's a different era, a different game, a different strike zone, and a different baseball.

If the best first baseman of his era is not "good enough" to be in the HOF, then one must simply ridicule those who have made that decision.

Hodges was not only a great player -- he was a great manager. One had to live through 1969 to realize how great he was. Leo Durocher had the better team, but the Mets had the better manager -- and I do not like the Mets -- or the Brooklyn Dodgers. But Hodges led young players. He disciplined them. He taught them. And he respected them. Leo went to his summer house one August week end to attend to personal matters.

Joe Torre has many strong points. He has many weak points. The defining moment in the 1969 season occurred in the second game of an August double header when Cleon Jones failed to run out a ground ball.

Hodges waited until the Mets took the field for the top of the fifth inning, walked out to left field, and removed Cleon Jones from the game. The Mets then went on to win the first Eastern Division title in NL history. What would Joe Torre, if he were in Hodges' place, have done? Would he have wanted Cleon to have felt good about himself? Would he have wanted Cleon to maintain his confidence? Well, Cleon must have had something going for himself. He hit .340 and finished third in the batting race.

Hodges took an expansion team that had been a joke and in only its seventh year of existence, with no free agency, won the WS against a Baltimore team that won 109 games.

Not having Hodges in the Hall of Fame is analogous to saying the Carl Sagan shouldn't be voted into a Science Hall of Fame because he wasn't Albert Einstein.

[OCDan]

Whoa, big fella. That analogy is not too good. When you use EInstein, you are talking the Ruth of Science.

Secondly, I am only making the argument that a guy like Hodges and many of his like achievements don't belong. Look, as I said in my HoF I probabaly would have 50 guys, about 5 from each position. In my book, 500 HRs is not a guarantee. 20 years of 25 or 25 years of 20.

When I think HoF, I think players who transcended the game. PLayers like Ruth, Jackie, Aaron, Clemente, Seaver. They have to be the guys that all others are compared to. When you say power, you say Ruth. When you say consistently great, you say Aaron.

Heck, longevity, for some, means they put up big numbers. But that doesn't mean HoF.

The HoF is reserved for the greatest ever, period. In the final analysis, if honest and as unbiased as can be people disagree, then I think the guy is not worthy.

[MattM]

Whoa, big fella. That analogy is not too good. When you use EInstein, you are talking the Ruth of Science.

Secondly, I am only making the argument that a guy like Hodges and many of his like achievements don't belong. Look, as I said in my HoF I probabaly would have 50 guys, about 5 from each position. In my book, 500 HRs is not a guarantee. 20 years of 25 or 25 years of 20.

When I think HoF, I think players who transcended the game. PLayers like Ruth, Jackie, Aaron, Clemente, Seaver. They have to be the guys that all others are compared to. When you say power, you say Ruth. When you say consistently great, you say Aaron.

Heck, longevity, for some, means they put up big numbers. But that doesn't mean HoF.

The HoF is reserved for the greatest ever, period. In the final analysis, if honest and as unbiased as can be people disagree, then I think the guy is not worthy.

Dan you make some good points, and I agree with what you say to an extent. The Hall wasn't just built on the idea that the most hr's, hits, era, etc. got in. There's always been the other factors, like the persona, contributions to the team, etc.

Again, I listened to Rob Dibble, and he said that look at someone like Joe Morgan, who is the head of the Vets Comm. and said that they shouldn't be blamed entirely for not electing anyone, since the writers didn't elect these guys for 15 years. Anyways, Morgan's numbers aren't that great. He happened to play on the Big Red Machine, and even with 2 back-to-back MVP's, he is only a .265 lifetime hitter.

Either way, Santo and Hodges should be in, and umpires and executives should be elected by the writers, not the players.

[LouGehrig]

I agree with both of you. The problem is that it is impossible to compare players from different eras because too many variables exist.

For many years, I did not think Gil Hodges was a Hall of Famer. I am so conservative that I don't think Gary Carter or Carlton Fiske belong, based on pure talent, not longevity.

But things are not that way. Don Sutton was not close to Sandy Koufax in pure ability, but Sutton had many fine seasons and he belongs.

Based on the above statements, if Tony Perez is in the HOF, then Hodges belongs.

[Brownie31]

There is a thread and poll in the Hall of Fame section on does Tony Lazzeri belong. I voted no and posted that if he is in, Gil Hodges certainly should be in. Lazzeri is in, IMHO, strictly on being a Yankee. Why don't you Brooklynites pay a visit?

Brownie31

[EbtsFldGuy]

After I last posted I remembered that I used to see a Gil Hodges Field from the BQE? Belt Parkway? It was somewhere on the way to the Verazzano. It looked like a little league field. St Joseph's College in Indiana named their field after Gil. There is a Gil Hodges Field in Brentwood, LI and the Marine Parkway bridge in the Rockaways is named after him. That's a good start, I am sure there are many more.


I remember that field. It was on the right side (inland side) as you approached the Verrazano, about a half-mile past Lincoln High School (which was on the other side of the Belt). A subway parking yard is right there.

I haven't seen the sign in years, though the field is still there.