Let's Get Gil Elected!

[Spirit of '55]

Friends:

The only way the Hall of Shame can truly repent for admitting Wallet O'Money in December is to finally admit GIL HODGES.

Let's get on it! Far better than just fruitlessly protesting O'Money's induction (which we should do anyway), ours will be a positive act, an honorarium to a singular human being and a singular team---Our Gil and Our Dodgers.:homeplate:

[DODGER DEB]

Friends:

The only way the Hall of Shame can truly repent for admitting Wallet O'Money in December is to finally admit GIL HODGES.

Let's get on it! Far better than just fruitlessly protesting O'Money's induction (which we should do anyway), ours will be a positive act, an honorarium to a singular human being and a singular team---Our Gil and Our Dodgers.:homeplate:

Every BROOKLYN DODGER fan shares your enthusiasm, Spirit of '55, for getting GIL into the HOF. However, if you read OUR archives, you will find that WE have tried everything through the years to make this happen....with little success.

If you have some new idea/s on how WE can deliver this, please share them with US, and WE will get the ball rolling. One wall WE need to knock down is Earl Weaver and Reggie Jackson, and the few who support their "NO" vote.

c.

[MattM]

Every BROOKLYN DODGER fan shares your enthusiasm, Spirit of '55, for getting GIL into the HOF. However, if you read OUR archives, you will find that WE have tried everything through the years to make this happen....with little success.

If you have some new idea/s on how WE can deliver this, please share them with US, and WE will get the ball rolling. One wall WE need to knock down is Earl Weaver and Reggie Jackson, and the few who support their "NO" vote.

c.

Is there any way we can contact either pompous jack*** and find out why they feel Gil isn't HOF worthy? I'm sorry if Mazeroski could get in, why not Gil?

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

No, Gil is undeserving and two wrongs don't make a right.

[LeoD]

I'm not sure Gil would want to be in a HOF that excepted the O'M.

[D6+]

I'm not sure Gil would want to be in a HOF that excepted the O'M.


LeoD, this is along the lines of how I feel.

There's absolutely nothing that HOF can do to make up for their horrific decision in electing Walter O' Malley into that HOF. If Gil Hodges gets elected into that HOF, I'll be happy for his children and his fans who still want to see Gil get into the HOF. Beyond that, I'm indifferent because of what transpired early last month.

[aqib]

Reading about his impact on the game I think Gil Hodges deserves to be in. Now with O'Malley's induction the hall shouldn't be keeping Pete Rose, McGwire, Barry Bonds or anyone else out of the hall for being unethical. Especially McGwire whose steriod use was all pre-03 when the policy was implemented. The Hall has essentially made itself a joke with O'Malley's induction but at the same time since it is still considered an exclusive club and an honor to be inducted the movement to get Gil Hodges in should not stop just because O'Malley is there.

Which brings me to another question, will there be a large Brooklyn Dodger fan presence in Cooperstown. As a Browns fan who dreads the possibility of Art Modell being inducted into Canton, which is a more real possibility with O'Malley going into Cooperstown, I would like to see you guys make a real statement that day so the football voters will shy away from following suit.

[BoofBonser26]

Seriously, how is a poll this hateful on BBF not shut down?

[callingit]

Boof, baseball ain't all apple pie & americana. There's always dirt under the welcome mat, no matter who's house you're in.

My point is there are villains in this game as well as there are heroes, and the villains sometimes get more attention than the heroes do.


Isn't that right, Mr. Clemens?


A discussion on baseball people & matters should continue regardless of how dispassionate the forum becomes, so long the rights of all the debaters are respected.

A topical discourse will not always be a pleasant one.

[yanks0714]

Is there any way we can contact either pompous jack*** and find out why they feel Gil isn't HOF worthy? I'm sorry if Mazeroski could get in, why not Gil?

Possibly because Maz is widely considered the greatest fielder in baseball hostory at a critical position as 2B. Gil was a very good defensive player at a much less critical position.

Personally, I feel Maz was a mistake in being elected. I'd feel the same way about Gil being elected.

[metfan13]

Reading about his impact on the game I think Gil Hodges deserves to be in. Now with O'Malley's induction the hall shouldn't be keeping Pete Rose, McGwire, Barry Bonds or anyone else out of the hall for being unethical. Especially McGwire whose steriod use was all pre-03 when the policy was implemented. The Hall has essentially made itself a joke with O'Malley's induction but at the same time since it is still considered an exclusive club and an honor to be inducted the movement to get Gil Hodges in should not stop just because O'Malley is there.

Which brings me to another question, will there be a large Brooklyn Dodger fan presence in Cooperstown. As a Browns fan who dreads the possibility of Art Modell being inducted into Canton, which is a more real possibility with O'Malley going into Cooperstown, I would like to see you guys make a real statement that day so the football voters will shy away from following suit.

This logic makes no sense. Rose, Bonds, McGwire did things to hurt baseball. Baseball, helped O'Malley move, allowed him to. WHY would MLB consider O'Malley in any way like Rose, Bonds, McGwire?

[kramer_47]

Possibly because Maz is widely considered the greatest fielder in baseball hostory at a critical position as 2B. Gil was a very good defensive player at a much less critical position.

Personally, I feel Maz was a mistake in being elected. I'd feel the same way about Gil being elected.

I'm so tired of hearing what some new stats people think are critical positions.
I think that all 9 positions are needed or when they invented the modern game of baseball they would have had 8 positions. Maz is in the HOF and I'm not going to knock him or any other player already in. Our fight is to prove that Gil was the best first baseman of his era and probably played the position better then any righthanded in the history of the game. Gil made all his infielders at the so called critical postions look good saving them alot of errors. He made the play on the bunt and the 3-6-3 double play look easy, he was the best at getting his foot off the bag on close plays to get the call from the umpire. He was a clutch hitter who many times didn't have a great hitter behind him protecting him, he was first or second in home runs and rbi on the Dodgers just about every year from 1949-57. Gil is being penalized because he played at Ebbets Field and he played first base, no one knows how far his home runs went they could have all been over 375-400 feet. His splits home and away are fairly equal so he could hit anywhere, back then you had odd shape parks so there is no way you can prove the Ebbets Field helped or hurt as much as other parks. All I know is that Gil was a big part of all those winning Dodgers teams, his 2 rbi won it for them in game 7 in 1955, the Dodgers wouldn't have been the same without Gil in the lineup.

[metfan13]

I'm so tired of hearing what some new stats people think are critical positions.
I think that all 9 positions are needed or when they invented the modern game of baseball they would have had 8 positions. Maz is in the HOF and I'm not going to knock him or any other player already in. Our fight is to prove that Gil was the best first baseman of his era and probably played the position better then any righthanded in the history of the game. Gil made all his infielders at the so called critical postions look good saving them alot of errors. He made the play on the bunt and the 3-6-3 double play look easy, he was the best at getting his foot off the bag on close plays to get the call from the umpire. He was a clutch hitter who many times didn't have a great hitter behind him protecting him, he was first or second in home runs and rbi on the Dodgers just about every year from 1949-57. Gil is being penalized because he played at Ebbets Field and he played first base, no one knows how far his home runs went they could have all been over 375-400 feet. His splits home and away are fairly equal so he could hit anywhere, back then you had odd shape parks so there is no way you can prove the Ebbets Field helped or hurt as much as other parks. All I know is that Gil was a big part of all those winning Dodgers teams, his 2 rbi won it for them in game 7 in 1955, the Dodgers wouldn't have been the same without Gil in the lineup.

Then by that logic Keith Hernandez should be in the hall of fame because there's not much argument that he was the greatest defensive 1B of all. The Maz, or Ozzie Smith or Brooks Robinson of 1B.

But as unhappy as it makes some people, new ways of looking at things do come around. Then again, I imagine defense up the middle has always been considered more important by baseball people.

[kramer_47]

Then by that logic Keith Hernandez should be in the hall of fame because there's not much argument that he was the greatest defensive 1B of all. The Maz, or Ozzie Smith or Brooks Robinson of 1B.

But as unhappy as it makes some people, new ways of looking at things do come around. Then again, I imagine defense up the middle has always been considered more important by baseball people.

Even though Keith was probably the best 1B ever, he deserves to be in the HOF, but he was lefthanded Gil was the best righthanded 1B. He made plays as good or better then lefthanded 1B, Gil played both sides of the ball, you had defense and offense unlike the 3 defensive wizards you mentioned. Anybody that saw Gil play knows he was a big part of those winning Dodgers teams but modern day detractors like Weaver and Jackson are holding him back for reasons other then his baseball skills.

[aqib]

This logic makes no sense. Rose, Bonds, McGwire did things to hurt baseball. Baseball, helped O'Malley move, allowed him to. WHY would MLB consider O'Malley in any way like Rose, Bonds, McGwire?

McGwire hurt baseball? Go back to 97 and look at where baseball was at the time. The 98 home run race brought america back to the ballpark. Bonds turned the Giants from a franchise on its way to Tampa Bay into one of the biggest draws in baseball. Rose's actions were as a manager not as a player, he was the key part of some great teams. All those guys have more positive contributions to the game than O'Malley who has none.

[metfan13]

McGwire hurt baseball? Go back to 97 and look at where baseball was at the time. The 98 home run race brought america back to the ballpark. Bonds turned the Giants from a franchise on its way to Tampa Bay into one of the biggest draws in baseball. Rose's actions were as a manager not as a player, he was the key part of some great teams. All those guys have more positive contributions to the game than O'Malley who has none.

The question was from MLB's point of view since they're being "asked" here to right a wrong. From their point of view there's no wrong on the O'Malley move to right. They went along with it. And yes each of those mentioned did somethign that could cause them to be kept from the hall. O'Malley helped MLB expand to the west coast.

[mandrake]

Okay, this might not be popular here, but I think OMALLEY deserves to be a Hall of famer. He is probably the most influential owner of all time. For good or bad, he set the mold. The HOF is filled with some very nasty people; so the Big O is right at home.

BUT, there are some nice guys in the HOF too, and HODGES belongs.

If anyone wants to discuss his detractors, I am game. (specifically Earl Weaver and even Reggie Jackson. And exactly why did Reggie pick up this cause from Ted Williams ? Did he visit Ted on his death bed and promise to carry the fight?)

And why is Earl Weaver in the HOF ??? (I always think of Billy Martin threatening to slap him back in the 70's)

[yanks0714]

I'm so tired of hearing what some new stats people think are critical positions.
I think that all 9 positions are needed or when they invented the modern game of baseball they would have had 8 positions. Maz is in the HOF and I'm not going to knock him or any other player already in. Our fight is to prove that Gil was the best first baseman of his era and probably played the position better then any righthanded in the history of the game. Gil made all his infielders at the so called critical postions look good saving them alot of errors. He made the play on the bunt and the 3-6-3 double play look easy, he was the best at getting his foot off the bag on close plays to get the call from the umpire. He was a clutch hitter who many times didn't have a great hitter behind him protecting him, he was first or second in home runs and rbi on the Dodgers just about every year from 1949-57. Gil is being penalized because he played at Ebbets Field and he played first base, no one knows how far his home runs went they could have all been over 375-400 feet. His splits home and away are fairly equal so he could hit anywhere, back then you had odd shape parks so there is no way you can prove the Ebbets Field helped or hurt as much as other parks. All I know is that Gil was a big part of all those winning Dodgers teams, his 2 rbi won it for them in game 7 in 1955, the Dodgers wouldn't have been the same without Gil in the lineup.

Are you saying you think all 9 positions have the same value defensively? That a good fielding IB is as valuable to his team defensively as a good fielding SS???
Gil Hodges was a fine player. He was a very good defensive 1B. I'm positive he made the other infielders glad he was at 1B. I've no doubt that he could turn the 3-6-3 DP very well. But Vic Power was a RH'ed 1B also.
Ebbets Field was a ballpark that had it's whimsical odd shapes. So did others of the era. Looking back you can tell whether a park favored a hitter or pitcher as well as whether it helped or hurt a RH/LH hitter. There is no way to deny that Ebbets Field helped Duke Snider for instance.
As for the length of HRs, as long as it's a HR I don't care how far it went.
IMHO, Gil ranked behind Jackie, Duke, Campy, and Pee Wee (and maybe Furillo as well) in terms of who was critical to those great Brooklyn Dodger teams.
A great human being. One of the nicest men you'll ever one to meet. Strong, upstanding citizen

[kramer_47]

Are you saying you think all 9 positions have the same value defensively? That a good fielding IB is as valuable to his team defensively as a good fielding SS???
Gil Hodges was a fine player. He was a very good defensive 1B. I'm positive he made the other infielders glad he was at 1B. I've no doubt that he could turn the 3-6-3 DP very well. But Vic Power was a RH'ed 1B also.
Ebbets Field was a ballpark that had it's whimsical odd shapes. So did others of the era. Looking back you can tell whether a park favored a hitter or pitcher as well as whether it helped or hurt a RH/LH hitter. There is no way to deny that Ebbets Field helped Duke Snider for instance.
As for the length of HRs, as long as it's a HR I don't care how far it went.
IMHO, Gil ranked behind Jackie, Duke, Campy, and Pee Wee (and maybe Furillo as well) in terms of who was critical to those great Brooklyn Dodger teams.
A great human being. One of the nicest men you'll ever one to meet. Strong, upstanding citizen

Who makes more plays the ss or 1b, the 1b does and how many times does a great 1b save one of his infielders from getting an error. Yes you need to be strong up the middle but you also need a good firstbaseman, look at the Yankees last year they went with offense at 1b out of spring training but by June they called up Andy Phillips because of his defense and they took off after that. Yes Vic Powers was a very good 1b but we are talking about the Dodgers and Gil Hodges right now. Yes Duke Snider had the perfect swing for Ebbets Field, but we can't penalize him because he played there instead of Crosley field or Yankee Stadium. How could you or anyone else say that Gil ranked after or before anyone else, please checkout the baseball reference and see that Gil was mostly 1 or 2 and sometimes 3 in homeruns or rbi for the Dodgers from 1949-57. Here is Gil's position on the Dodgers from 1949-57 in HR and RBI then tell me he ranked behind all those players.
HR RBI
1949 1 2 ( Tied with Duke Snider for HR lead)
1950 1 1
1951 1 2
1952 1 1
1953 3 3 (hurt but he still had 31 HR and 122 RBI)
1954 1 1 (tied with Duke with 130 RBI)
1955 3 3 (27 HR and 102 RBI)
1956 2 2
1957 2 1

[KCGHOST]

Even with all the hard core Brooklyn Dodger fans at BBF, there has never been a mock vote here (minimum 20 voters) in which Hodges gets the 75% needed for induction.

[LeoD]

Are you saying you think all 9 positions have the same value defensively? That a good fielding IB is as valuable to his team defensively as a good fielding SS???
Gil Hodges was a fine player. He was a very good defensive 1B. I'm positive he made the other infielders glad he was at 1B. I've no doubt that he could turn the 3-6-3 DP very well. But Vic Power was a RH'ed 1B also.
Ebbets Field was a ballpark that had it's whimsical odd shapes. So did others of the era. Looking back you can tell whether a park favored a hitter or pitcher as well as whether it helped or hurt a RH/LH hitter. There is no way to deny that Ebbets Field helped Duke Snider for instance.
As for the length of HRs, as long as it's a HR I don't care how far it went.
IMHO, Gil ranked behind Jackie, Duke, Campy, and Pee Wee (and maybe Furillo as well) in terms of who was critical to those great Brooklyn Dodger teams.
A great human being. One of the nicest men you'll ever one to meet. Strong, upstanding citizen

He was a very good 1b period , not HOF, the Dodgers would have been just as good with several other 1B.

[kramer_47]

He was a very good 1b period , not HOF, the Dodgers would have been just as good with several other 1B.

That doesn't make sense, just get rid of your top or 2nd HR and RBI guy and replace him with another 1B( please check my earlier post that showed where Gil ranked on the Dodgers in HR and RBI). There weren't any 1B with his numbers year in year out from 1949-57, and as far as fielding goes he was the best of his era. The Dodgers were who they were, a great team because of the players that produced for them during this era. No one could ever say that if the Dodgers had this guy or that guy they would have been better at any position we just don't know, the only thing that I think we needed was a little more pitching.

[metfan13]

That doesn't make sense, just get rid of your top or 2nd HR and RBI guy and replace him with another 1B( please check my earlier post that showed where Gil ranked on the Dodgers in HR and RBI). There weren't any 1B with his numbers year in year out from 1949-57, and as far as fielding goes he was the best of his era. The Dodgers were who they were, a great team because of the players that produced for them during this era. No one could ever say that if the Dodgers had this guy or that guy they would have been better at any position we just don't know, the only thing that I think we needed was a little more pitching.


It doesn't mean every one on that team is a HoFer. He was less important than a few other guys on the team.

[LeoD]

That doesn't make sense, just get rid of your top or 2nd HR and RBI guy and replace him with another 1B( please check my earlier post that showed where Gil ranked on the Dodgers in HR and RBI). There weren't any 1B with his numbers year in year out from 1949-57, and as far as fielding goes he was the best of his era. The Dodgers were who they were, a great team because of the players that produced for them during this era. No one could ever say that if the Dodgers had this guy or that guy they would have been better at any position we just don't know, the only thing that I think we needed was a little more pitching.

The team was so strong they could have achieved what they did with guys like Ted Kluszewski, Vic Power, Joe Adcock, even Eddie Waitkus, and Earl Torgeson.

[kramer_47]

The team was so strong they could have achieved what they did with guys like Ted Kluszewski, Vic Power, Joe Adcock, even Eddie Waitkus, and Earl Torgeson.

I've heard this one before and it sounds absurd every time I hear it. None of these guys had anywhere near the career Gil had, I wish you would go to baseball reference and look up Gil and these other guys then you would see how ridiculous your statement is. While you are at www.baseball-reference.com click on Brooklyn in Gil's stats and see how he compared every year to the other players on the Dodgers.

[kramer_47]

It doesn't mean every one on that team is a HoFer. He was less important than a few other guys on the team.

Very few, please go to www.baseball-reference.com and check out how Gil compared to his teammates.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

When I think of Gil [not a Hall O'Famer] I'm reminded of his lovely wife Joan. Does she still don a "Met Orange" hair doo? That was so cool.

[metfan13]

From 1950 (when he became a regular) through 1956 (years the Dodgers were winning) Ted Kluszewski was every bit as good a hitter as Hodges. Adcock was comparable.

[kramer_47]

From 1950 (when he became a regular) through 1956 (years the Dodgers were winning) Ted Kluszewski was every bit as good a hitter as Hodges. Adcock was comparable.

You better go back and check out Gil's record, your whole statement is so wrong, next time check before you put things in writing. You aren't making yourself look very knowledgeable on the Brooklyn Dodgers or the rest of the National league in the 1950's. People come here to learn also, so making false or wrong statements isn't doing anyone any good.

[LeoD]

From 1950 (when he became a regular) through 1956 (years the Dodgers were winning) Ted Kluszewski was every bit as good a hitter as Hodges. Adcock was comparable.

Of cause you, and I are wrong, we don't agree with Kramer, who is the expert on the subject, at least in his own mind.

[metfan13]

You better go back and check out Gil's record, your whole statement is so wrong, next time check before you put things in writing. You aren't making yourself look very knowledgeable on the Brooklyn Dodgers or the rest of the National league in the 1950's. People come here to learn also, so making false or wrong statements isn't doing anyone any good.


Reread my post and check the record. I can't be bothered posting Hodges and Kluszewski's numbers for the year mentioned. Please don't question my knowledge of baseball. I may not be at the level of some of the researchers here, but we're not exactly talking obscure players in this case.

[metfan13]

Of cause you, and I are wrong, we don't agree with Kramer, who is the expert on the subject, at least in his own mind.

Ah, so now you tell me.

[metfan13]

OK, so I went and added it up.

1950-1956

Hodges .281 Avg, 236 HR, 759 RBI

Kluszewski .306 Avg, 225 HR, 738 RBI

I'd say that's every bit as good a hitter.

Kramer, please explain how my statement is "so wrong".

[kramer_47]

Reread my post and check the record. I can't be bothered posting Hodges and Kluszewski's numbers for the year mentioned. Please don't question my knowledge of baseball. I may not be at the level of some of the researchers here, but we're not exactly talking obscure players in this case.

I read it again it is still wrong, why are you saying things off the top of your head , when you make statements like you did that are incorrect I'll question you especially when Gil is involved. Gil became a regular in 1948 when Leo gave him a 1B glove, Klu had 4 good years from 1953-56 and Adcock if you checked his record doesn't even deserved to be mentioned his first good year came in 1956 and he shared time with Frank Torre in the 1957-58 WS. Gil had 7 great years in row from 1949-55 with 100 RBI every year.

[metfan13]

I read it again it is still wrong, why are you saying things off the top of your head , when you make statements like you did that are incorrect I'll question you especially when Gil is involved. Gil became a regular in 1948 when Leo gave him a 1B glove, Klu had 4 good years from 1953-56 and Adcock if you checked his record doesn't even deserved to be mentioned his first good year came in 1956 and he shared time with Frank Torre in the 1957-58 WS. Gil had 7 great years in row from 1949-55 with 100 RBI every year.

I'll copy my post here for you again. Please read it then read the stats that match the claim I make. Tell me how I'm wrong and how this is off the top of my head?

From 1950 (when he became a regular) through 1956 (years the Dodgers were winning) Ted Kluszewski was every bit as good a hitter as Hodges. Adcock was comparable.

1950-1956

Hodges .281 Avg, 236 HR, 759 RBI

Kluszewski .306 Avg, 225 HR, 738 RBI

I'd say that's every bit as good a hitter.

[kramer_47]

OK, so I went and added it up.

1950-1956

Hodges .281 Avg, 236 HR, 759 RBI

Kluszewski .306 Avg, 225 HR, 738 RBI

I'd say that's every bit as good a hitter.

Kramer, please explain how my statement is "so wrong".

Gil did become a regular in 1948, usually we use 1949-57 because those were the glory years. Klu didn't have a big power year till 1953 and that ended in 1956 even though he stayed around after that. That is why you can't use Klu, Gil was consistent in his power numbers over a longer period. I'm sorry I questioned your baseball knowledge but it seems everyone wants to compare Gil to just about anyone with a 1b glove and they will state just about anything even if it isn't true. I know everyone has an opinion , all I ask is please get the facts straight before posting them. I happen to have a strong opinion on Gil Hodges and have seen him play also researched him thoroughly.

[kramer_47]

I'll copy my post here for you again. Please read it then read the stats that match the claim I make. Tell me how I'm wrong and how this is off the top of my head?

I think I answered you above, they do have stats that compare but Klu was heavy from 1953-56, he doesn't compare with Gil for the 1949-56 period year in year out. Anyway I don't like when someone says anyone could have played 1B for the Dodgers and they would have won anyway. If you look back in this thread I posted where Gil was mostly 1st or 2nd in HR and RBI on the team from 1949-57, how do you replace that production. The Dodgers were a team and they won together, Gil was a big part of all those great teams.

[metfan13]

Gil did become a regular in 1948, usually we use 1949-57 because those were the glory years. Klu didn't have a big power year till 1953 and that ended in 1956 even though he stayed around after that. That is why you can't use Klu, Gil was consistent in his power numbers over a longer period. I'm sorry I questioned your baseball knowledge but it seems everyone wants to compare Gil to just about anyone with a 1b glove and they will state just about anything even if it isn't true. I know everyone has an opinion , all I ask is please get the facts straight before posting them. I happen to have a strong opinion on Gil Hodges and have seen him play also researched him thoroughly.

Even extending back to 1949 Klu had a higher average and lugging than Gil. Gil had more total homers and RBI. In 57 Klu missed a good part of the year with injury.

[kramer_47]

Even extending back to 1949 Klu had a higher average and lugging than Gil. Gil had more total homers and RBI. In 57 Klu missed a good part of the year with injury.

So you are saying Gil was the one Dodger we could just get rid of and he could be replaced by Klu or just about any other 1B. The Dodgers wouldn't have missed a beat they would have been just as good a team. Well anyone that says that is crazy, how do you replace your 1st or 2nd power guy in a lineup. How do you and LeoD consider Gil the least important Dodger when year in year out he was not only one of their leading power guys but a leader on the team not to mention one of the best 1B in the league. I don't know how true blue Dodgers fans could look down on one of their own unless the people making the comments about Gil are fans of other teams and just visiting this site.

[metfan13]

So you are saying Gil was the one Dodger we could just get rid of and he could be replaced by Klu or just about any other 1B. The Dodgers wouldn't have missed a beat they would have been just as good a team. Well anyone that says that is crazy, how do you replace your 1st or 2nd power guy in a lineup. How do you and LeoD consider Gil the least important Dodger when year in year out he was not only one of their leading power guys but a leader on the team not to mention one of the best 1B in the league. I don't know how true blue Dodgers fans could look down on one of their own unless the people making the comments about Gil are fans of other teams and just visiting this site.


What I'm saying is for that period of time 1950-1956 wher ethe Dodgers were competing each year, that Ted Kluszewski was every bit the hitter Hodges was. That's what my post said and that's all I'm still saying.

As far as the Dodgers still competing in 1951, 52, 53, 55, 56 with Klu at first instead of Hodges, sure they would have. Look at Klu's numbers, and he wasn't in a line-up like the Dodgers'.

The comment wasn't about career numbers, it was in reaction to a post about there being other 1B who could have successfully replaced Hodges in the Dodger's line-up. Who knows, maybe Klu doesn't go 0-21 in the 52 series and the Dodgers win one more game.

[metfan13]

And yes, Snider, Reese and Jackie would have been much more difficult to replace in the line-up than Hodges. More unique skills, more crucial positions in the field.

[metfan13]

And before I'm labeled as some spawn of Earl Weaver looking to disgrace Hodges' memory, let me just say that I have great memories of Gil leading the Mets to that improbable WS win in 1969. He was a great leader, and did a fantastic job platooning at half the positions to get enough offense to go with that great young staff he and Rube Walker had put together.

[kramer_47]

What I'm saying is for that period of time 1950-1956 wher ethe Dodgers were competing each year, that Ted Kluszewski was every bit the hitter Hodges was. That's what my post said and that's all I'm still saying.

As far as the Dodgers still competing in 1951, 52, 53, 55, 56 with Klu at first instead of Hodges, sure they would have. Look at Klu's numbers, and he wasn't in a line-up like the Dodgers'.

The comment wasn't about career numbers, it was in reaction to a post about there being other 1B who could have successfully replaced Hodges in the Dodger's line-up. Who knows, maybe Klu doesn't go 0-21 in the 52 series and the Dodgers win one more game.

A few people have brought up the fact that Gil was the most replaceable Dodger of that era, all it does is annoy the people here that would like to see Gil in the HOF. It figures that LeoD would be the first to bring it up this time, you can change the way you dress but the stripes inside the new suit stays the same, you saw what he said and jumped in the conversation. That is the way it always works with the "Lets get Gil Hodges in the HOF" threads. The voters are suppose to look at more then the stats to see if someone is qualified, and Gil certainly had the other qualities. If you look at the HOF there are alot of people there on just stats, you have a few there for reasons other then stats, if the HOF voters went strictly by the rules alot of these guys wouldn't be there. The supporters of Gil could write until we're blue in the face and it won't change anything, everyone has there opinion, for a few he just misses for others like me he's always been a Hall of Famer.

[metfan13]

A few people have brought up the fact that Gil was the most replaceable Dodger of that era, all it does is annoy the people here that would like to see Gil in the HOF. It figures that LeoD would be the first to bring it up this time, you can change the way you dress but the stripes inside the new suit stays the same, you saw what he said and jumped in the conversation. That is the way it always works with the "Lets get Gil Hodges in the HOF" threads. The voters are suppose to look at more then the stats to see if someone is qualified, and Gil certainly had the other qualities. If you look at the HOF there are alot of people there on just stats, you have a few there for reasons other then stats, if the HOF voters went strictly by the rules alot of these guys wouldn't be there. The supporters of Gil could write until we're blue in the face and it won't change anything, everyone has there opinion, for a few he just misses for others like me he's always been a Hall of Famer.

Yes. And that's the way things go. Someone posts an opinion and other agree or disagree. Hopefully with no namecalling. I personally don't know that Gil was a HoF player. Apparently 15 years of writers and 25 years of veterans committees agree. Some fans who watched him play in Brooklyn don't agree.

[kramer_47]

Yes. And that's the way things go. Someone posts an opinion and other agree or disagree. Hopefully with no namecalling. I personally don't know that Gil was a HoF player. Apparently 15 years of writers and 25 years of veterans committees agree. Some fans who watched him play in Brooklyn don't agree.

I don't know if you've looked at how the voting went those 15 years, take a look at where Gil placed most of those years, they have all the years of voting on the HOF site. I think the fact that Gil died so young didn't help him either because they wanted warm bodies at the induction. Gil was elected in 1993 by the Veterans committee but Ted Williams wouldn't allow Campy's vote because he phoned it in, Campy was too sick to make the trip and died in June 1993. The old Veterans committee met in Tampa every year, you had to be there to vote, today they can email there vote in. Here is HOF rule 10. Voting: The Committee shall consider all eligible candidates and voting shall be based upon the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game.This is the yardstick that is suppose to be used but most of the time it is pushed aside for the player with the best stats. This is why the HOF has people in it that are criminals, drug addicts other people with lesser character but this was all overridden because they had great stats. What happened to integrity,character and sportsmanship when it came to these guys, I think Leo was right "nice guys finish last".

[metfan13]

There are worse people you can continue campaigning for, but I think some of the conspiracies are over the top. For example plenty of deceased men have been elected.

It just gets to the point where once someone has gone 40 - 50 years, maybe he's just not good enough.

[kramer_47]

There are worse people you can continue campaigning for, but I think some of the conspiracies are over the top. For example plenty of deceased men have been elected.

It just gets to the point where once someone has gone 40 - 50 years, maybe he's just not good enough.

Yes decease men have been elected usually by the Veterans Committee 75-100 years after they played, there are rare instances where the writers voted in a deceased player(Roberto Clemente) but most have been elected by Veterans committee. You can see even though Gil finished in the top 5 in the voting almost every year he didn't have much of a chance because the writers don't vote in dead players.Yes some of the conspiracies are over the top but there are some that are very real. During the early 1970's the Veterans Committee was led by Frankie Frisch and he pushed to get his friends in. During the 1980's and 1990's Ted Williams ran it and brokered deals with people like Stan Musial, Williams wanted Doerr in and Musial wanted Schoendienst in. The 1993 voting is true and just another thing Williams did to keep Gil out, the last straw was when he conspired with Joe Brown to get Bill Mazeroski in, another year Williams drew the vote away from Gil.The new Veterans Committee is impossible that's why they are changing it, so with all the politics and favoritism by the old Veterans Committee Gil really hasn't had all the years you say, I just wish he'd get a fair shake which he deserves.

[metfan13]

I guess I find it hard to believe that so much time and effort has been put in by so many people just to keep Gil out.

[kramer_47]

I guess I find it hard to believe that so much time and effort has been put in by so many people just to keep Gil out.

Well believe it, everything I wrote is true and can be backed up by others. I'd like to know why these people have done what they did too because Gil was a well respected guy.

[metfan13]

Well believe it, everything I wrote is true and can be backed up by others. I'd like to know why these people have done what they did too because Gil was a well respected guy.


By other who? Posters on a message board?

Sorry, I find it unlikely that the baseball world is conspiring against Gil Hodges.

[kramer_47]

By other who? Posters on a message board?

Sorry, I find it unlikely that the baseball world is conspiring against Gil Hodges.

No matter what I or anyone else says you'll come back the opposite. Whether you believe it or not there are alot of well informed people on these boards, people that actually saw the Dodgers play.

[metfan13]

No matter what I or anyone else says you'll come back the opposite. Whether you believe it or not there are alot of well informed people on these boards, people that actually saw the Dodgers play.

And being Dodger fans your memories are clouded by hero worship. When you move outside the Brooklyn Dodger board and read what's on the HoF board and history board, you find longtime baseball fans, baseball historians, stat freaks and all other kinds who generally don't think Gil is a HoFer.

[kramer_47]

And being Dodger fans your memories are clouded by hero worship. When you move outside the Brooklyn Dodger board and read what's on the HoF board and history board, you find longtime baseball fans, baseball historians, stat freaks and all other kinds who generally don't think Gil is a HoFer.

You are right abouted the clouded hero worship, every fan probably has that.
When you do move outside the Brooklyn room you have the people that dislike New York and of course root for other teams and have their own agenda which you have to take into consideration too. So this all plays a role with these other fans, stat freaks and "historians", so I take what some of them say with a grain of salt also.

[metfan13]

You are right abouted the clouded hero worship, every fan probably has that.
When you do move outside the Brooklyn room you have the people that dislike New York and of course root for other teams and have their own agenda which you have to take into consideration too. So this all plays a role with these other fans, stat freaks and "historians", so I take what some of them say with a grain of salt also.

Fair response. You do never know who has an agenda.

[kramer_47]

Fair response. You do never know who has an agenda.
That's right you never know who has an agenda, plus back then with all the teams east of St. Louis you had alot of writers from further west not ever seeing the players who they vote for play except once a week on the game of the week.

[Brianritt]

Not only does Gil have better stats then a handful of hall of famers (Maz, Scooter) he won as a player and a manager! Aside from being a great player & manager, he was a great person within the community.

[kramer_47]

Not only does Gil have better stats then a handful of hall of famers (Maz, Scooter) he won as a player and a manager! Aside from being a great player & manager, he was a great person within the community.

I agree with you completely but there seems to be alot of people that don't agree with us. Some of these people have seen Gil play but most of them never saw him play they are just going by stats.

[metfan13]

Not only does Gil have better stats then a handful of hall of famers (Maz, Scooter) he won as a player and a manager! Aside from being a great player & manager, he was a great person within the community.

You cannot compare HoF stats of 1B and SS/2B.

Then again Rizzutto and Mazeroski are questionable HoFers themselves.

[kramer_47]

You cannot compare HoF stats of 1B and SS/2B.

Then again Rizzutto and Mazeroski are questionable HoFers themselves.

Please explain to me who made that rule, and the logic behind it, is it a Bill James rule. When we were kids we needed 9 players to play the game, no one ever said this position or that position was a better position.

[metfan13]

Please explain to me who made that rule, and the logic behind it, is it a Bill James rule. When we were kids we needed 9 players to play the game, no one ever said this position or that position was a better position.

Teams have been playing this way for decades. Defensive shortstops, in the line-up due to their gloves. CF being more key than corner OF because he had to cover more ground. Hiding big slower sluggers at 1B or 3B. You're telling me you think this is a new concept?

And yes defensively some positions are more important than others. When you were kids did you put your best defensive player out in RF and the slow clumsy kid at SS? I didn't think so.

[kramer_47]

Teams have been playing this way for decades. Defensive shortstops, in the line-up due to their gloves. CF being more key than corner OF because he had to cover more ground. Hiding big slower sluggers at 1B or 3B. You're telling me you think this is a new concept?

And yes defensively some positions are more important than others. When you were kids did you put your best defensive player out in RF and the slow clumsy kid at SS? I didn't think so.

We are talking the Major leagues here where only the best make it, probably most of the players were shortstops at one time or another. In fact Gil was signed as a shortstop, played 3B when first called up then was made a catcher after the military, he was a very good athlete.

[metfan13]

We are talking the Major leagues here where only the best make it, probably most of the players were shortstops at one time or another. In fact Gil was signed as a shortstop, played 3B when first called up then was made a catcher after the military, he was a very good athlete.
And the reason they moved him to (first catcher) first base? Because he wasn't capable of playing SS. They put the quicker superior fielder there.

Seriously, this isn't some new concept. Yes there's been analysis of it, more to see if what we've always done makes sense, but really baseball teams have always operated this way. Defense up the middle. How old is that saying/

[kramer_47]

And the reason they moved him to (first catcher) first base? Because he wasn't capable of playing SS. They put the quicker superior fielder there.

Seriously, this isn't some new concept. Yes there's been analysis of it, more to see if what we've always done makes sense, but really baseball teams have always operated this way. Defense up the middle. How old is that saying/

I know how it's been since baseball began, it just seems they are over analyzing now with Bill James and other so called experts coming along with their numbers and ideas. Gil was a pretty good catcher but he went to 1B when a guy name Campy came along.

[LeoD]

Take it from the oldest Brooklyn Dodger fan at this forum, and I'll match my love and knowledge of the team against anyone here, Gil Hodges, was a find player, and a great person, but not HOF, period, and this debate is great fun for some of you, and one that's been over done for years, with no body changing anyones mind, but whatever makes you people happy is alright with this old Brooklyn boy. So let the fun continue.

[metfan13]

I know how it's been since baseball began, it just seems they are over analyzing now with Bill James and other so called experts coming along with their numbers and ideas. Gil was a pretty good catcher but he went to 1B when a guy name Campy came along.

Yes, heaven forbid we look at numbers to verify what's been known by instinct all along.

And since the numbers agree in this case, that middle of the diamond positions are more important than corners, what's the arguement?

[kramer_47]

Yes, heaven forbid we look at numbers to verify what's been known by instinct all along.

And since the numbers agree in this case, that middle of the diamond positions are more important than corners, what's the arguement?

What numbers are you talking about.

[metfan13]

What numbers are you talking about.

The same ones you are in this sentence:

I know how it's been since baseball began, it just seems they are over analyzing now with Bill James and other so called experts coming along with their numbers and ideas

[kramer_47]

The same ones you are in this sentence:

I think Bill James and these other guys aren't giving enough credit to first baseman, they handle the ball more then anyone on the field as far as putouts and assist go.

[yanks0714]

Please explain to me who made that rule, and the logic behind it, is it a Bill James rule. When we were kids we needed 9 players to play the game, no one ever said this position or that position was a better position.

Kramer, when you played baseball as a kid did you put some defensively challenged kid at SS? C'mon, you know that the better defensive kids played the more challenging positions. If you wanted a decent defensive team you put your're best defensive players at SS, 2B, and CF (catcher was whoever was unafraid to don the tools of ignorance). After filling those positions you placed the rest of the kids at the other positions (where they could do the least damage).
It's no different in MLB.
Tell me why players who played othre positions gt moved to 1B when they can no longer handle their old positions. You never see an older player moved to SS, 2B, or CF do you? Doesn't that tell you something about the criticality of the positions?

[yanks0714]

I think Bill James and these other guys aren't giving enough credit to first baseman, they handle the ball more then anyone on the field as far as putouts and assist go.

Taking throws from the other infielders which is not nearly the same as fielding a batted ball in any respect.

As well, since there are many more RH'ed hitters, the 3B will get more chances than the 1B on batted balls.

Gil Hodges was a great defensive 1B, no doubt. But in the spectrum of defensive importance 1B is down the list. This type thinking wasn't started by Bill Jmes and others, it's been a baseball definitive since forever.

In the deaball days, 1B was more important defensively because of the number of bunts that occurred. That changed with the liveball though.

I liked Gil Hodges. I did see him play during his last years. From all accounts one of the nicest human beings you ever want to meet. I admire your support of Gil, keeping the flame alive so to speak, and it's somewhat normal to want your hero to achieve the respect you feel he deserves. It's another to simply stick by your guns despite being shown repeatedly that there is more to look at than what you may be doing. That's when it becomes stubborness.

[kramer_47]

Kramer, when you played baseball as a kid did you put some defensively challenged kid at SS? C'mon, you know that the better defensive kids played the more challenging positions. If you wanted a decent defensive team you put your're best defensive players at SS, 2B, and CF (catcher was whoever was unafraid to don the tools of ignorance). After filling those positions you placed the rest of the kids at the other positions (where they could do the least damage).
It's no different in MLB.
Tell me why players who played othre positions gt moved to 1B when they can no longer handle their old positions. You never see an older player moved to SS, 2B, or CF do you? Doesn't that tell you something about the criticality of the positions?

I know this as well as you and anybody else here, I played alot of baseball in my time. Like I said earlier alot of players signed as SS then were switched to other positions. Gil went to 3B then catcher because Rickey felt he could be the Dodger catcher of the future, Gil was a pretty good catcher but Campy came along so Leo switched him to 1B the rest is history. Gil wasn't your lumbering 1B he was very athletic unlike some of the others switched there, some teams made big mistakes playing bad players at 1B. Anyway what I was trying to get Metfan13 to say was that alot of people including himself go by these new numbers Bill James thought up. The problem with his new numbers is he guesses alot, estimates and the formula to figure out these new numbers is so difficult that you basically have to believe what James comes up with.

[kramer_47]

Taking throws from the other infielders which is not nearly the same as fielding a batted ball in any respect.

As well, since there are many more RH'ed hitters, the 3B will get more chances than the 1B on batted balls.

Gil Hodges was a great defensive 1B, no doubt. But in the spectrum of defensive importance 1B is down the list. This type thinking wasn't started by Bill Jmes and others, it's been a baseball definitive since forever.

In the deaball days, 1B was more important defensively because of the number of bunts that occurred. That changed with the liveball though.

I liked Gil Hodges. I did see him play during his last years. From all accounts one of the nicest human beings you ever want to meet. I admire your support of Gil, keeping the flame alive so to speak, and it's somewhat normal to want your hero to achieve the respect you feel he deserves. It's another to simply stick by your guns despite being shown repeatedly that there is more to look at than what you may be doing. That's when it becomes stubborness.

What you"re saying is very logical but if you have a very good 1B like Gil or Keith Hernandez they can save you some runs and some errors. Who would you rather have at 1B Gil or Dick Stuart, you just can't put anyone there the Mets found that out with Mike Piazza. I'm not the only one here that supports Gil there are many People at this forum and others that support him. I know Gil's stats backwards and forwards, I'm not going to believe these new numbers they aren't fully true numbers when guesses are involved and they penalize players for playing in different parks. Baseball is baseball no matter where you play it the games are won and lost on the field, do we takes the 1954 WS away from the Giants because Bill James may think Dusty Rhodes HRs were too short. I'm sorry it bothers you that I stick to my guns even though there are alot of people that feel I should just stop supporting Gil because they say he doesn't belong. No ones opinion sways me one bit because most are based on their numbers(stats) very few are based on the 5 rules that should be weighed to get elected to the HOF.

[kramer_47]

Taking throws from the other infielders which is not nearly the same as fielding a batted ball in any respect.

As well, since there are many more RH'ed hitters, the 3B will get more chances than the 1B on batted balls.

Gil Hodges was a great defensive 1B, no doubt. But in the spectrum of defensive importance 1B is down the list. This type thinking wasn't started by Bill Jmes and others, it's been a baseball definitive since forever.

In the deaball days, 1B was more important defensively because of the number of bunts that occurred. That changed with the liveball though.

I liked Gil Hodges. I did see him play during his last years. From all accounts one of the nicest human beings you ever want to meet. I admire your support of Gil, keeping the flame alive so to speak, and it's somewhat normal to want your hero to achieve the respect you feel he deserves. It's another to simply stick by your guns despite being shown repeatedly that there is more to look at than what you may be doing. That's when it becomes stubborness.

What you"re saying is very logical but if you have a very good 1B like Gil or Keith Hernandez they can save you some runs and some errors. Who would you rather have at 1B Gil or Dick Stuart, you just can't put anyone there the Mets found that out with Mike Piazza. I'm not the only one here that supports Gil there are many People at this forum and others that support him. I know Gil's stats backwards and forwards, I'm not going to believe these new numbers they aren't fully true numbers when guesses are involved and they penalize players for playing in different parks. Baseball is baseball no matter where you play it the games are won and lost on the field, do we takes the 1954 WS away from the Giants because Bill James may think Dusty Rhodes HRs were too short. I'm sorry it bothers you that I stick to my guns even though there are alot of people that feel I should just stop supporting Gil because they say he doesn't belong. No ones opinion sways me one bit because most are based on their numbers(stats) very few are based on the 5 rules that should be weighed to get elected to the HOF.

[metfan13]

Totally disregarding anything new is not a healthy way to carry on a conversation. Bill James doesn't just "make numbers up" he and the many like him studdy the game, look at the results and look for ways to determine why thos results happened. Then you can use those numbers for useful comparisons.

It's somethign to add to people's memories, because as we often see, memories can be faulty and the same old baseball card stats don't always tell the whole story.

[kramer_47]

Totally disregarding anything new is not a healthy way to carry on a conversation. Bill James doesn't just "make numbers up" he and the many like him studdy the game, look at the results and look for ways to determine why thos results happened. Then you can use those numbers for useful comparisons.

It's somethign to add to people's memories, because as we often see, memories can be faulty and the same old baseball card stats don't always tell the whole story.

Your right but his method and formulas are so difficult most people don't know how to use them. What about the 5 rules voters are suppose to consider when voting on a candidate it isn't just stats.

[metfan13]

Your right but his method and formulas are so difficult most people don't know how to use them. What about the 5 rules voters are suppose to consider when voting on a candidate it isn't just stats.

It's mainly stats. Other things are to be taken into consideration.

[yanks0714]

Your right but his method and formulas are so difficult most people don't know how to use them. What about the 5 rules voters are suppose to consider when voting on a candidate it isn't just stats.

I'm no Bill James disciple but I do admire what he does. He's not just a statistician but a baseball historian. Have you read his 'Baseball Historical Abstract'? It's not just numbers. He has some great stories in there from waaay back. Very entertaining read. BTW, he also admits that he has no real way of knowing if #52 is better than #45. He'll poke some fun at himself too.

Yes, his methods and formulas can be a bit complicated. I think I understand Win Shares from a basic standpoint. Enough so that I can pretty much trust them although I don't agree with all the conclusions.

As for the 5 rules, yes, they need to be considered. It's not all stats. One reason that Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose are not enshrined. But the HOF is filled with people who were less than perfect. Not everybody was a Lou Gehrig or Stan Musial, two of whom I've never heard a bad word about.

Again, keep stomping for Gill Hodges in the HOF. I can understand why you do. I don't agree with your points on it but I do admire you for your determination.

[kramer_47]

It's mainly stats. Other things are to be taken into consideration.

The formula is difficult to use and it uses arbitrary numbers and educated guesses alot.

[kramer_47]

I'm no Bill James disciple but I do admire what he does. He's not just a statistician but a baseball historian. Have you read his 'Baseball Historical Abstract'? It's not just numbers. He has some great stories in there from waaay back. Very entertaining read. BTW, he also admits that he has no real way of knowing if #52 is better than #45. He'll poke some fun at himself too.

Yes, his methods and formulas can be a bit complicated. I think I understand Win Shares from a basic standpoint. Enough so that I can pretty much trust them although I don't agree with all the conclusions.

As for the 5 rules, yes, they need to be considered. It's not all stats. One reason that Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose are not enshrined. But the HOF is filled with people who were less than perfect. Not everybody was a Lou Gehrig or Stan Musial, two of whom I've never heard a bad word about.

Again, keep stomping for Gill Hodges in the HOF. I can understand why you do. I don't agree with your points on it but I do admire you for your determination.

I also admire what he's trying to do, he has a big following sort of like a cult and not everything he comes up with happened on the field. He uses arbitrary numbers and educated guesses to come up with his figures thus distorting the real stats that the player had on the field.
If the voters used the 5 rules(actually 6) when voting on Gil he would already be in, individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game. Think about all the HOFers who have been elected just on stats and the voters forgot the integrity, sportsmanship, and character part of the voting process.

[LeoD]

I also admire what he's trying to do, he has a big following sort of like a cult and not everything he comes up with happened on the field. He uses arbitrary numbers and educated guesses to come up with his figures thus distorting the real stats that the player had on the field.
If the voters used the 5 rules(actually 6) when voting on Gil he would already be in, individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game. Think about all the HOFers who have been elected just on stats and the voters forgot the integrity, sportsmanship, and character part of the voting process.

Yeah, I read at another forum, some member thought Jackie Robinson only got into the HOF, because he was the first Black player in the modern day major's, the guy even claims to be a die hard Brooklyn Dodger fan, strange.

[metfan13]

I also admire what he's trying to do, he has a big following sort of like a cult and not everything he comes up with happened on the field. He uses arbitrary numbers and educated guesses to come up with his figures thus distorting the real stats that the player had on the field.
If the voters used the 5 rules(actually 6) when voting on Gil he would already be in, individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game. Think about all the HOFers who have been elected just on stats and the voters forgot the integrity, sportsmanship, and character part of the voting process.

You're talking about something different from the baseball Hall of Fame. There are some guidlines, things that can enter into discussion, but it's mainly about performance on the field.

[kramer_47]

You're talking about something different from the baseball Hall of Fame. There are some guidlines, things that can enter into discussion, but it's mainly about performance on the field.

No it isn't at least it shouldn't be, the voters are given 6 things to considered when they are voting for the HOF.

1) individual's record
2) ability
3) integrity
4) sportsmanship
5) character
6) contribution to the game

[metfan13]

No it isn't at least it shouldn't be, the voters are given 6 things to considered when they are voting for the HOF.

1) individual's record
2) ability
3) integrity
4) sportsmanship
5) character
6) contribution to the game

There's a difference between things to consider and whether they should be considered equally. Obviously, the most important factor has always been ability on the field. Apparently character and sportsmanship has not been used as a way to keep many players out.

Also, obviously, the baseball hall of fame is not unhappy with how the BBWAA has followed these guidelines as this group continues to be their voting group for admission.

[kramer_47]

There's a difference between things to consider and whether they should be considered equally. Obviously, the most important factor has always been ability on the field. Apparently character and sportsmanship has not been used as a way to keep many players out.

Also, obviously, the baseball hall of fame is not unhappy with how the BBWAA has followed these guidelines as this group continues to be their voting group for admission.

They should follow the guidelines but of course sometimes they don't, but rules are rules but they bend them for the Cepedas, Fergusons, Molitors, Boggs,Cobbs and Perrys just to name a few. But with guys like Hodges they only look at this or that when he is one of the few who fills all the qualifications.

[LeoD]

They should follow the guidelines but of course sometimes they don't, but rules are rules but they bend them for the Cepedas, Fergusons, Molitors, Boggs,Cobbs and Perrys just to name a few. But with guys like Hodges they only look at this or that when he is one of the few who fills all the qualifications.

I think all nice guys should be in the HOF, even if they lack enough talent, what do you think Kramer?

[penncentralpete]

Kramer47: I'm hoping Gil makes the hall too. I'd like to see it in my lifetime, so I could attend the ceremony!

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

No it isn't at least it shouldn't be, the voters are given 6 things to considered when they are voting for the HOF.

1) individual's record
2) ability
3) integrity
4) sportsmanship
5) character
6) contribution to the game

By those standards, felons Duke Snider and Willie McCovey would be gonzo from the Hall... and what about Ty Cobb?

[yanks0714]

By those standards, felons Duke Snider and Willie McCovey would be gonzo from the Hall... and what about Ty Cobb?

Actually the HOF would consist of Lou Gehrig & Stan Musial two guys nobody ever says a bad word about.