Hall of famer Tony Perez vs Gil hodges

[mandrake]

Gil Hodges VS Hall of famer Tony Perez
162 game avg:
29 hr 100 rbi 273 avg vs 22hr 96rbi 279 avg
career bests:
42hr 130rbi 304 avg vs 40hr 129rbi 317avg
100 rbi seasons:7 straight vs 7 seasons
MVP voting3 times in top 10 vs 4 times in top 10

Can somebody please explain why Tony Perez is in the Hall of Fame and Gil Hodges is not ! Perez whined for years, and even brought up the race issue ! Gil is not here to plead his case, so we must do it for him? Is this a case of reverse discrimination ? I hope not.

Even the legendary Buck O'Neil stated that Hodges belonged in the Hall of fame !

And I have already stated in an earlier post that Earl Weaver is the most overrated underachieving manager of all time. And I just looked at Reggie Jackson's 162 game avg: 32 hr 98 rbi 262 avg HMMMM. Maybe Reggie padded his stats by hanging on in Anaheim as a DH??.

(stats taken from baseball referenc.com)

[metfan13]

Gil Hodges VS Hall of famer Tony Perez
162 game avg:
29 hr 100 rbi 273 avg vs 22hr 96rbi 279 avg
career bests:
42hr 130rbi 304 avg vs 40hr 129rbi 317avg
100 rbi seasons:7 straight vs 7 seasons
MVP voting3 times in top 10 vs 4 times in top 10

Can somebody please explain why Tony Perez is in the Hall of Fame and Gil Hodges is not ! Perez whined for years, and even brought up the race issue ! Gil is not here to plead his case, so we must do it for him? Is this a case of reverse discrimination ? I hope not.

Even the legendary Buck O'Neil stated that Hodges belonged in the Hall of fame !

And I have already stated in an earlier post that Earl Weaver is the most overrated underachieving manager of all time. And I just looked at Reggie Jackson's 162 game avg: 32 hr 98 rbi 262 avg HMMMM. Maybe Reggie padded his stats by hanging on in Anaheim as a DH??.

(stats taken from baseball referenc.com)

Perez played in a tough offensive era, so a straight match on stats isn't fair. Perez had a much longer period as a significant player. Gil had a nice peak for 6 (maybe 7) years then tailed off fairly young.

[kramer_47]

Perez played in a tough offensive era, so a straight match on stats isn't fair. Perez had a much longer period as a significant player. Gil had a nice peak for 6 (maybe 7) years then tailed off fairly young.

Gil played when there was only 8 teams in the league, Perez played when they had 12 teams the talent had to be diluted when you add another 200 players 80 of them pitchers in both leagues. I know you had those bigger all purpose stadiums but you also had astro turf which raised the players average and slugging pct. A few years ago I took both players stats lifetime and I took the average of every stat for a season and Gil beat out Tony in everyone except total bases which was very close. If we look at fielding Tony couldn't carry Gil's glove, and later in Tony's career he DH too. Gil was productive from 1949-59, his most productive years were 1949-57 when he only missed 24 games(13 in 1953 when he was hurt). Tony is a good player but it beats me why he's there in the HOF and Gil isn't there, they are very close as players, maybe live warm bodies win out over someone who is no longer with us.

[metfan13]

Gil played when there was only 8 teams in the league, Perez played when they had 12 teams the talent had to be diluted when you add another 200 players 80 of them pitchers in both leagues. I know you had those bigger all purpose stadiums but you also had astro turf which raised the players average and slugging pct. A few years ago I took both players stats lifetime and I took the average of every stat for a season and Gil beat out Tony in everyone except total bases which was very close. If we look at fielding Tony couldn't carry Gil's glove, and later in Tony's career he DH too. Gil was productive from 1949-59, his most productive years were 1949-57 when he only missed 24 games(13 in 1953 when he was hurt). Tony is a good player but it beats me why he's there in the HOF and Gil isn't there, they are very close as players, maybe live warm bodies win out over someone who is no longer with us.

Gil played against far fewer minorities, so the teams were filled up with enough talent by Tony's day.

[mandrake]

Gil played against far fewer minorities, so the teams were filled up with enough talent by Tony's day.

I don't care what color/ethnicity some played against, or with. The Dodgers had great Black players and great White players, and they still could not beat the Yankees... who were 'all White' in their dynasty 1947-57.
Tony Perez benefitted from Rose, Morgan, Bench, Griffey, Foster, Geronimo, etc etc surrounding him in the lineup. If he is a HOF player, so is Hodges.
(And I never said Perez is NOT a HOF player).

[metfan13]

I don't care what color/ethnicity some played against, or with. The Dodgers had great Black players and great White players, and they still could not beat the Yankees... who were 'all White' in their dynasty 1947-57.
Tony Perez benefitted from Rose, Morgan, Bench, Griffey, Foster, Geronimo, etc etc surrounding him in the lineup. If he is a HOF player, so is Hodges.
(And I never said Perez is NOT a HOF player).

If you'll reread, I was answering the claim that the talent was watered down by expansion in Tony's day. Made no claims that the talent was better, just not watered down.

[kramer_47]

If you'll reread, I was answering the claim that the talent was watered down by expansion in Tony's day. Made no claims that the talent was better, just not watered down.

You really can't judge from era to era but it had to be watered down some when Tony played. Mandrake is right the Yankees had only one black or before 1955 none and they still beat the Dodgers. All I know is there was 8 teams in the 1950's and 10-12 teams in Tony's era.

[metfan13]

You really can't judge from era to era but it had to be watered down some when Tony played. Mandrake is right the Yankees had only one black or before 1955 none and they still beat the Dodgers. All I know is there was 8 teams in the 1950's and 10-12 teams in Tony's era.

You answer it yourself. The Yanks had one black player. Other teams also had few black and hispanic players. By Tony's time there were many. The players for those extra 2-4 teams came from increased population, plus more black and hispanic players. It wasn't watered down.

[kramer_47]

You answer it yourself. The Yanks had one black player. Other teams also had few black and hispanic players. By Tony's time there were many. The players for those extra 2-4 teams came from increased population, plus more black and hispanic players. It wasn't watered down.

I can understand what you are saying, but think about it the Dodgers had more black players then anyone but still lost to the all white Yankees why.

[metfan13]

I can understand what you are saying, but think about it the Dodgers had more black players then anyone but still lost to the all white Yankees why.

Because the all-white Yankees had the best white players?

I have no idea where you're going with this. When talking about expansion watering down talent it's a league wide thing. Championship teams would tend not to be affected, so why bring in the Yankees?

[kramer_47]

Because the all-white Yankees had the best white players?

I have no idea where you're going with this. When talking about expansion watering down talent it's a league wide thing. Championship teams would tend not to be affected, so why bring in the Yankees?

You're the one that brought up that there were more minority players in the 1960-70's thus making Tony Perez's era tougher then Gil's era. I brought in the Yankees because they had one black player and still beat the Dodgers.

[metfan13]

You're the one that brought up that there were more minority players in the 1960-70's thus making Tony Perez's era tougher then Gil's era. I brought in the Yankees because they had one black player and still beat the Dodgers.

NO NO NO. I said the minority players filled those extra spots so that there wasn't a dilution of talent going from 8 to 10 or 12 as someone said.

Here's my quote:

Gil played against far fewer minorities, so the teams were filled up with enough talent by Tony's day.

I didn't say that the era was tougher in Tony's time, I was saying it wasn't weaker because of diluted talent.

[kramer_47]

NO NO NO. I said the minority players filled those extra spots so that there wasn't a dilution of talent going from 8 to 10 or 12 as someone said.

Here's my quote:



I didn't say that the era was tougher in Tony's time, I was saying it wasn't weaker because of diluted talent.
metfan13 said
"Gil played against far fewer minorities, so the teams were filled up with enough talent by Tony's day."

It sounded like because of the minorities the teams were better and Gil was a lesser player because he didn't play against as many minorities as Tony.

[KCGHOST]

Personally I wouldn't have elected Perez and since his RCAA, WARP3 and Win Shares are all higher than Hodges I am not inclined to give Gil the nod.

And one thing that I will not do is promote a guy as an HoFer because he is sort of like a guy who probably shouldn't be in the HoF.

Gil was an enormously popular player on a very popular team and yet couldn't command the necessary HoF votes from the BBWAA. This clearly marks him as marginal at best candidate. Gil played half his games in a very friendly hitters park while Perez played half his game in a neutral hitters park. Both players were surrounded by great players.

[mandrake]

Personally I wouldn't have elected Perez and since his RCAA, WARP3 and Win Shares are all higher than Hodges I am not inclined to give Gil the nod.

And one thing that I will not do is promote a guy as an HoFer because he is sort of like a guy who probably shouldn't be in the HoF.

Gil was an enormously popular player on a very popular team and yet couldn't command the necessary HoF votes from the BBWAA. This clearly marks him as marginal at best candidate. Gil played half his games in a very friendly hitters park while Perez played half his game in a neutral hitters park. Both players were surrounded by great players.

Hey KC, I think you have a very objective and some well thought out reasoning. I only want to say that stats alone should not be what gets you in. When MLB recently voted in Negro League Stars and did NOT put in Buck O'Neil, that was a disgrace. When the media questioned Buck, he allegedly stated "well Gil Hodges is not in either".
Last year I met an elderly Black man who was in the hospital, and we struck up a conversation about baseball and the Dodgers. It was his opinion that us younger "kids" could shove the HOF . One of his quotes " There ain't anyone in there that could play RF better than Furillo, and nobody anywhere could field 3b better than Cox". Now, I never saw either of them play, and maybe their stats don't match modern standards, but I am sure there are great players who will never get in to the HOF.
And I am sure that some undeserving people are already in (Bid McPhee in 2000, over a century after he retired??? I already wrote about that travesty)

[metfan13]

Hey KC, I think you have a very objective and some well thought out reasoning. I only want to say that stats alone should not be what gets you in. When MLB recently voted in Negro League Stars and did NOT put in Buck O'Neil, that was a disgrace. When the media questioned Buck, he allegedly stated "well Gil Hodges is not in either".
Last year I met an elderly Black man who was in the hospital, and we struck up a conversation about baseball and the Dodgers. It was his opinion that us younger "kids" could shove the HOF . One of his quotes " There ain't anyone in there that could play RF better than Furillo, and nobody anywhere could field 3b better than Cox". Now, I never saw either of them play, and maybe their stats don't match modern standards, but I am sure there are great players who will never get in to the HOF.
And I am sure that some undeserving people are already in (Bid McPhee in 2000, over a century after he retired??? I already wrote about that travesty)

And playing good D in Rf or 3B for the Brooklyn Dodgers doesn't by itself make you a HoFer. Sounds more like fan talk.

[strummer]

Interesting points, Mandrake. Try comparing the stats for Furillo, Willy, Mickey and the Duke, and throw in DiMaggio and you will find that Furillo is in the middle in all the hitting stats, except homers, and leads in all the defensive stats. Should he be in the HOF? Probably , but after Hodges.

As to Cox, Rex Barney (former Dodger pitcher from the late 40s to early
50s) was the stadium announcer for the Oriloles when Brooks Robinson played. He always told Brooks that Cox would have made the same play as Brooks did, "only he would make it look easy". You had to see Cox play to appreciate him. He would make a great play on a tough grounder and then look as if he was counting the stitches on the ball before he threw to first -- and it was always an accurate throw and always got the guy out by at least a half-step.

[metfan13]

The words of former players exaggerating the players of their day. Been happening since the 1800's.

[metfan13]

Interesting points, Mandrake. Try comparing the stats for Furillo, Willy, Mickey and the Duke, and throw in DiMaggio and you will find that Furillo is in the middle in all the hitting stats, except homers, and leads in all the defensive stats. Should he be in the HOF? Probably , but after Hodges.


Compare Furillo's stats for what? His best year? His career? You list Mays, Mantle, Snider and DiMaggio. I'd like to know which set of stats Furillo's in the middle of.

[KCGHOST]

Hey KC, I think you have a very objective and some well thought out reasoning. I only want to say that stats alone should not be what gets you in. When MLB recently voted in Negro League Stars and did NOT put in Buck O'Neil, that was a disgrace. When the media questioned Buck, he allegedly stated "well Gil Hodges is not in either".
Last year I met an elderly Black man who was in the hospital, and we struck up a conversation about baseball and the Dodgers. It was his opinion that us younger "kids" could shove the HOF . One of his quotes " There ain't anyone in there that could play RF better than Furillo, and nobody anywhere could field 3b better than Cox". Now, I never saw either of them play, and maybe their stats don't match modern standards, but I am sure there are great players who will never get in to the HOF.
And I am sure that some undeserving people are already in (Bid McPhee in 2000, over a century after he retired??? I already wrote about that travesty)


Well to be technical about it MLB didn't vote on Buck's worthiness: It was the Negro League Committee established by the HoF that botched Buck's election. I could have understood Buck not getting elected, but I can't buy there were 17 remaining people who were more worthy of induction that Buck.

I saw Furillo and Cox and they were magnificent defenders, but they didn't come close to having HoF caliber careers. Furillo, one of my favorites, had a number of excellent offensive seasons that Ebbets Field made look better than they were. And what an arm. Bobby Cox was Brooks Robinson before Brooks Robinson only played in 9 seasons ( WWII interrupted his career), but he really was weak at the plate.

I have no problem with Bid McPhee. Yes, electing him 101 years after he played makes you wonder, but amongst the 17 HoF 2B's he ranks 9th in win shares, 7th in WARP3, and 12th in RCAA. There are probably half-a-dozen 2B's we should bounce before him.

[kramer_47]

Well to be technical about it MLB didn't vote on Buck's worthiness: It was the Negro League Committee established by the HoF that botched Buck's election. I could have understood Buck not getting elected, but I can't buy there were 17 remaining people who were more worthy of induction that Buck.

I saw Furillo and Cox and they were magnificent defenders, but they didn't come close to having HoF caliber careers. Furillo, one of my favorites, had a number of excellent offensive seasons that Ebbets Field made look better than they were. And what an arm. Bobby Cox was Brooks Robinson before Brooks Robinson only played in 9 seasons ( WWII interrupted his career), but he really was weak at the plate.

I have no problem with Bid McPhee. Yes, electing him 101 years after he played makes you wonder, but amongst the 17 HoF 2B's he ranks 9th in win shares, 7th in WARP3, and 12th in RCAA. There are probably half-a-dozen 2B's we should bounce before him.

Please explain win shares, WARP3, RCAA and who came up with these different systems to rate the players. Billy Cox was a great 3rd baseman probably every bit as good as Brooks, who got really screwed up in WW2 not only for the time he was in service but for many years after. Even though Billy was with the Dodgers he wasn't hyped like other great 3rd baseman because he wasn't a good hitter

[kramer_47]

The words of former players exaggerating the players of their day. Been happening since the 1800's.

I don't know how old you are but you said that you never saw the Dodgers play, how could you out of hand make a statement like that. you never saw Billy play, some people say he was the best 3rd baseman of his era maybe even better then Brooks. Yes there is some exaggeration with some players but I think Rex was telling the truth here.

[JohnCropp]

Can somebody please explain why Tony Perez is in the Hall of Fame and Gil Hodges is not?

Enough people who vote on who is elected into the Hall of Fame felt like Tony Perez deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. Not enough thought Gil Hodges should be in.

That is the answer.

Stats are irrelevant because stats don't get you into the Hall of Fame, opinions do.

I personally don't think either of them should be in, but I didn't get to vote.

[metfan13]

I don't know how old you are but you said that you never saw the Dodgers play, how could you out of hand make a statement like that. you never saw Billy play, some people say he was the best 3rd baseman of his era maybe even better then Brooks. Yes there is some exaggeration with some players but I think Rex was telling the truth here.

He MAY have been a better defender. Hard to tell. But to be a HoFer you need to hit a bit too.

And no I never saw the Dodgers play in Brooklyn. But my Dad did. He grew as a Brooklyn Dodger fan. But he's a little more objective than some around here.

[kramer_47]

He MAY have been a better defender. Hard to tell. But to be a HoFer you need to hit a bit too.

And no I never saw the Dodgers play in Brooklyn. But my Dad did. He grew as a Brooklyn Dodger fan. But he's a little more objective than some around here.

I'm not saying Billy was a HOFer just one of the best 3rd baseman of his era.
What is objective, we all have our favorites but can be objective on the rest of the team. I think my grandfather and uncles (one worked at Ebbets Field for years the other was a NY Giants fan) were truthful and objective when they talked about the Dodgers and you feel the same about your dad. If we sat all these men in a room I'm sure they would agree on some things and disagree on other things.

[metfan13]

I'm not saying Billy was a HOFer just one of the best 3rd baseman of his era.
What is objective, we all have our favorites but can be objective on the rest of the team. I think my grandfather and uncles (one worked at Ebbets Field for years the other was a NY Giants fan) were truthful and objective when they talked about the Dodgers and you feel the same about your dad. If we sat all these men in a room I'm sure they would agree on some things and disagree on other things.

oh sure. As long as there were no Yankee fans invited.

[kramer_47]

oh sure. As long as there were no Yankee fans invited.

That's right, I can't believe that some Brooklyn Dodgers fans became Yankee fans when they left. Then there were others who became LA Dodgers fans, not me I was so brokenhearted I went to the Orioles in 1958 and then in 1962the Mets.

[metfan13]

That's right, I can't believe that some Brooklyn Dodgers fans became Yankee fans when they left. Then there were others who became LA Dodgers fans, not me I was so brokenhearted I went to the Orioles in 1958 and then in 1962the Mets.

Dad had the natural rivalry with friends who were Giants fans, but despised the Yanks. He tried following the team when they moved to LA, but realized it was pointless. I guess when the 59 Championship was no thrill he new it was over. He was kind of in limbo until the Mets arrived.

The thought of following the Yankees never crossed his mind.

[kramer_47]

Dad had the natural rivalry with friends who were Giants fans, but despised the Yanks. He tried following the team when they moved to LA, but realized it was pointless. I guess when the 59 Championship was no thrill he new it was over. He was kind of in limbo until the Mets arrived.

The thought of following the Yankees never crossed his mind.

He felt the same way I did, I watched what my favorite Dodgers did out there but just couldn't root for the LA team, I've been a Mets fan since they held the draft in 1961.

[metfan13]

He felt the same way I did, I watched what my favorite Dodgers did out there but just couldn't root for the LA team, I've been a Mets fan since they held the draft in 1961.

So, unless you're over 90 you've been a Mets fan longer than you were a Dodger fan.

[yanks0714]

Hey KC, I think you have a very objective and some well thought out reasoning. I only want to say that stats alone should not be what gets you in. When MLB recently voted in Negro League Stars and did NOT put in Buck O'Neil, that was a disgrace. When the media questioned Buck, he allegedly stated "well Gil Hodges is not in either".
Last year I met an elderly Black man who was in the hospital, and we struck up a conversation about baseball and the Dodgers. It was his opinion that us younger "kids" could shove the HOF . One of his quotes " There ain't anyone in there that could play RF better than Furillo, and nobody anywhere could field 3b better than Cox". Now, I never saw either of them play, and maybe their stats don't match modern standards, but I am sure there are great players who will never get in to the HOF.
And I am sure that some undeserving people are already in (Bid McPhee in 2000, over a century after he retired??? I already wrote about that travesty)

My Dad watched every Oriole game on television duirng his retired years. he came to the conclusion that Brady Anderson was the best defensive CF'er in baseball. :noidea
Because we watch someone day in and day out doesn't mean they are the best at that position. You're not seeing the other players on a regular basis to make a sound judgement.
Billy Cox was an excellent 3B. But there are numerous other 3B who weere just as good or better.
Carl Furillo was an average RF'er. His real claim was his rocket arm. Just because he could throw exceedingly well doesn't make him a great defensive player.

[yanks0714]

I don't know how old you are but you said that you never saw the Dodgers play, how could you out of hand make a statement like that. you never saw Billy play, some people say he was the best 3rd baseman of his era maybe even better then Brooks. Yes there is some exaggeration with some players but I think Rex was telling the truth here.

Well, then believe KGHOST who did see them play.

[metfan13]

My Dad watched every Oriole game on television duirng his retired years. he came to the conclusion that Brady Anderson was the best defensive CF'er in baseball. :noidea
Because we watch someone day in and day out doesn't mean they are the best at that position. You're not seeing the other players on a regular basis to make a sound judgement.
Billy Cox was an excellent 3B. But there are numerous other 3B who weere just as good or better.
Carl Furillo was an average RF'er. His real claim was his rocket arm. Just because he could throw exceedingly well doesn't make him a great defensive player.

Couldn't have seen cox play too much 3B either. He had only one season with more than 110 games at 3B.

[musial6]

Casey Stengel, whose career covered MANY eras, once said to Brooks Robinson, "You're great, Brooksie, but #3 was better."

[metfan13]

Casey Stengel, whose career covered MANY eras, once said to Brooks Robinson, "You're great, Brooksie, but #3 was better."

All well and good, but he still played just 700 games at 3B. Brooks played 4 times as many.

I could do the same at SS. never saw anyone make plays the Rey Ordonez did with the Mets. But I'm still not going to claim he was better than Ozzie Smith or Omar Vizquel.

And with guys like Stengel, I'm still thinking that's as much the talk of the older guy remembering his players or opponents in the best way possible. rewatch brooks against the Reds in the 1970 WS. I'd like to see the highlight reel to top that.

[mandrake]

And with guys like Stengel, I'm still thinking that's as much the talk of the older guy remembering his players or opponents in the best way possible. rewatch brooks against the Reds in the 1970 WS. I'd like to see the highlight reel to top that.


You can also check out Craig Nettles vs the Dodgers in 1978. Just as good as Brooks in '70; maybe saved more runs. Nettles, and I did not like him at all, should have been the WS MVP. Tommy Lasorda said he had NEVER seen anything like it.

[metfan13]

You can also check out Craig Nettles vs the Dodgers in 1978. Just as good as Brooks in '70; maybe saved more runs. Nettles, and I did not like him at all, should have been the WS MVP. Tommy Lasorda said he had NEVER seen anything like it.

Yes, Nettles series was right there, maybe better, than Brooks. Just seemed Brooks made a lot of great plays in that series.

[VIBaseball]

Carl Furillo was an average RF'er. His real claim was his rocket arm. Just because he could throw exceedingly well doesn't make him a great defensive player.

What's your basis for this statement, please, yanks0714? Aside from his arm, what sticks in my memory about Furillo was how he played the many crazy angles in right field at Ebbets better than anyone. As he told Roger Kahn, that came from many, many hours of work taking fungoes that Preacher Roe and Billy Cox hit. He would read the flight of the ball and simply run to a spot and take the carom.

It would have been interesting to see if Furillo would have won any Gold Gloves if the award had been around in his prime (it started in 1957). Of course, I know you have to take Gold Gloves with many grains of salt.

I look at the record and I see that Furillo made his share of errors. The number of plays he made per game was a little less than league average, but had to be influenced by the small size of Ebbets. I'd be willing to grant that popular legend has boosted Furillo's reputation -- but average? Surely not.

[kramer_47]

Well, then believe KGHOST who did see them play.

KGHOST has some good opinions and I enjoy reading his posts but he a believer in Bill James and his numbers. He still hasn't explained RCAA, WARP3 and Win Shares.

[kramer_47]

What's your basis for this statement, please, yanks0714? Aside from his arm, what sticks in my memory about Furillo was how he played the many crazy angles in right field at Ebbets better than anyone. As he told Roger Kahn, that came from many, many hours of work taking fungoes that Preacher Roe and Billy Cox hit. He would read the flight of the ball and simply run to a spot and take the carom.

It would have been interesting to see if Furillo would have won any Gold Gloves if the award had been around in his prime (it started in 1957). Of course, I know you have to take Gold Gloves with many grains of salt.

I look at the record and I see that Furillo made his share of errors. The number of plays he made per game was a little less than league average, but had to be influenced by the small size of Ebbets. I'd be willing to grant that popular legend has boosted Furillo's reputation -- but average? Surely not.

You are very right on about Carl Furillo he was a very good rightfielder, anyone that says he's average either forgot or never saw him play.

[kramer_47]

So, unless you're over 90 you've been a Mets fan longer than you were a Dodger fan.

I'll be 92 soon.

[metfan13]

I'll be 92 soon.

1916 - 1961 = 45 years (at most) Dodgers
1962 - 2008 = 46 years Mets

[kramer_47]

1916 - 1961 = 45 years (at most) Dodgers
1962 - 2008 = 46 years Mets

LOL, You're good, but I didn't root for the Dodgers after 1957.

[metfan13]

LOL, You're good, but I didn't root for the Dodgers after 1957.

So you're a Mets fan!!!!

[yanks0714]

What's your basis for this statement, please, yanks0714? Aside from his arm, what sticks in my memory about Furillo was how he played the many crazy angles in right field at Ebbets better than anyone. As he told Roger Kahn, that came from many, many hours of work taking fungoes that Preacher Roe and Billy Cox hit. He would read the flight of the ball and simply run to a spot and take the carom.

It would have been interesting to see if Furillo would have won any Gold Gloves if the award had been around in his prime (it started in 1957). Of course, I know you have to take Gold Gloves with many grains of salt.

I look at the record and I see that Furillo made his share of errors. The number of plays he made per game was a little less than league average, but had to be influenced by the small size of Ebbets. I'd be willing to grant that popular legend has boosted Furillo's reputation -- but average? Surely not.

I stand by my assertion that Carl Furillo was an average defensive RF'er who had a strong accurate right arm. I didn't say he was a bad fielder. I said he was average. How did Carl do as a CF'er before The Duke arrived and Carl was moved to RF?

I grant that Furillo played his home field, with it's various strange caroms and bounces, well. But that is only half the games played. He played the other half on the road. Was he as good on the road as he was at Ebbets Field?

Listen, Jim Rice played the Green Monster in Boston very well. He studied how the ball came off the wall. But just because of that would you claim Jim Rice was anything more than an average defensive player.

[yanks0714]

I'll be 92 soon.

Awesome, Kramer! I wondered how old you were to have talked about seeing the Brooklyn's play.

I tried to get my Dad interested in online message boards like this when he was in his late 70s / early 80s. He was a lifelong baseball fan. He'd read the messages and comment on them but was too reluctant to post them.

[yanks0714]

I'll be 92 soon.

It just struck me, you were born the year the Brooklyn Dodgers won their first pennant!

I'd love to hear more stories from you on Brooklyn andthe Brooklyn Dodgers over the years. It must have been something to be a member of that community and the pride in the Dodgers.

[VIBaseball]

How did Carl do as a CF'er before The Duke arrived and Carl was moved to RF?

Pretty well, at least from the basic stats available:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/furilca01.shtml

I'd like any eyewitness accounts of young Furillo in CF.

I'm glad you asked...it occurred to me that maybe Snider's range took plays away from Carl.

[metfan13]

Pretty well, at least from the basic stats available:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/furilca01.shtml

I'd like any eyewitness accounts of young Furillo in CF.

I'm glad you asked...it occurred to me that maybe Snider's range took plays away from Carl.


In fairness to Furillo, the wall took plays away from him. No wall, a long fly is an out, and therefore a "chance" which helps his fld pct. Playing the carom nicely off a strange angle of the wall and tossing it into second, holding the runner to a single counts as nothing.

[kramer_47]

So you're a Mets fan!!!!

Yes I am a Mets fan since 1962.

[kramer_47]

Awesome, Kramer! I wondered how old you were to have talked about seeing the Brooklyn's play.

I tried to get my Dad interested in online message boards like this when he was in his late 70s / early 80s. He was a lifelong baseball fan. He'd read the messages and comment on them but was too reluctant to post them.

I'm sorry yanks0714 I didn't meant to be deceptive but I was just kidding Metfan13 when he said I had to be over 90 to be a Brooklyn Dodgers fan as long as I've been a Mets fan. So of course I said I was going to be 92, my real age is in my profile and my year of birth is in my name 1947 making me 61.

[yanks0714]

I'm sorry yanks0714 I didn't meant to be deceptive but I was just kidding Metfan13 when he said I had to be over 90 to be a Brooklyn Dodgers fan as long as I've been a Mets fan. So of course I said I was going to be 92, my real age is in my profile and my year of birth is in my name 1947 making me 61.

No problem. I guess I'm just gullible. Two doggone Mets fans taking advantage of an innocent Yankee fan! :o

Heck, ya coulda told me about conversations ya had with Zack Wheat and I probably woulda believed ya.

No, I don't wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge...... :hyper::)

[kramer_47]

[QUOTE=yanks0714;1099580]No problem. I guess I'm just gullible. Two doggone Mets fans taking advantage of an innocent Yankee fan! :o

Heck, ya coulda told me about conversations ya had with Zack Wheat and I probably woulda believed ya.

No, I don't wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge...... :hyper::)[/QUOTE

I'm glad you mentioned it I do have an autograph of Zack Wheat I obtained in person, he is a real nice guy I talked to him for 5 minutes my father who is 114 was a friend of his.I have a friend in real estate the Brooklyn Bridge was just sold to another Yankee fan but he can get you a deal on the Williamsburg Bridge.

[yanks0714]

[QUOTE=yanks0714;1099580]No problem. I guess I'm just gullible. Two doggone Mets fans taking advantage of an innocent Yankee fan! :o

Heck, ya coulda told me about conversations ya had with Zack Wheat and I probably woulda believed ya.

No, I don't wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge...... :hyper::)[/QUOTE

I'm glad you mentioned it I do have an autograph of Zack Wheat I obtained in person, he is a real nice guy I talked to him for 5 minutes my father who is 114 was a friend of his.I have a friend in real estate the Brooklyn Bridge was just sold to another Yankee fan but he can get you a deal on the Williamsburg Bridge.


LOL!!! I needed a good laugh after the day I had at work.