70s Met Fans: What if Gil Hodges had lived?

[Long Island Mike]

Everyone - especially 70s era Met fans- I ask: What if Gil Hodges had lived?

I was looking at stats of Gil Hodges and remember that he died suddenly of a heart attack just two days before his 48th Birthday in 1972(4/4/24 - 4/2/72) when I was just 12. He died way ahead of his time - far too young in my opinion. I feel a little strange about this since
I am older now then he was at the time of his untimely death.

What would have been different concerning the Mets if he was manager compared to what was written in Mets history?
Would the Mets have had a better record for the rest of the 70s?
How would he have handled M.Donald Grant and the Mets management after Joan Payson passed away in 1975?
How long would he have stayed with the Mets as manager?

This topic is one question that I just can NOT answer myself - anyone have any thoughts? Thanks in advance to all-Long Island Mike

[milladrive]

One thing's for sure: The '72 Mets yearbook would not have had to have been quickly revamped within a week of Opening Day.

[Olliemets]

But I do believe the later decade would have not been so painful.

They won a Pennant in 73 by getting hot late, riding a GREAT starting staff , some defense and timely hitting despite being burdened by Yogi's managing. Yogi thought he had the 50's Yankees. Maybe they don't win in 73, who knows?

But I do believe that once Gil was gone, there was no counter weight to Grant and had he lived there would have been. Gil had a hand in some bad moves (giving up on Nolan Ryan for one, Amos Otis another) but no one is perfect. He would have been a presence in the baseball decisions. Once Johnny Murphy and Gil were gone the front office was filled by toadies and yes men (except for Cashen, that's been the history of the team). I think the decade of the 70s would have played out better.

Of course, most managers are eventually fired. They might have pushed him out eventually, as the game was hit by an earthquake with the advent of free agency.

One thing I do believe- Tommie Agee would have had a longer career as a Met. Hodges would not have allowed the Willie Mays Circus to happen, which hastened Tommy's demise.

Mr. Hodges was once calm, smart leader who like Earl Weaver, was able to identify what a player could DO, use it and get something out of him.

[theAmazingMet]

If Gil had lived he'd probably be in the HOF by now. That he is not is bs, and a conversation for a different thread. RIP GIL

[milladrive]

If Gil had lived he'd probably be in the HOF by now. That he is not is bs...

I couldn't agree more. Gil Hodges should, imho, be in Cooperstown.

[JPS]

I was 14 when Hodges died, and I remember it all too well. The Mets acquired Rusty Staub just days later and they got off to a 25-7 start before injuries completely destroyed their season (Hmm...Now where have I heard that before? :noidea Oh well...)

If the Mets management had maintained the same approach after Joan Payson passed away, Gil Hodges would have managed the Mets as long as he wanted to and they would have been much better. Okay, now I'll put that fantasy to rest.

One difference I see if Gil Hodges had lived is that the Mets would probably have beaten the A's in the '73 Series because Hodges was a better strategical manager than Yogi Berra was. Over the years, however, I don't think it would have made too much of a difference because nothing, short of selling the team before 1979, would have changed the Mets' fiscal policies. Hodges would have resigned after the disastrous 1977 season at the latest. M. Donald Grant and the owners would never have fired him because Hodges commanded too much respect. That respect was clearly evident during the Shoe Polish Play in game five of the '69 World Series. Knowng how stubborn umpires are, even in the presence of prima facie evidence like the ball with shoe polish on it, how many managers can change the mind of an umpire in a crucial situation like that? (Hall of Fame manager Earl Weaver couldn't) That kind of respect was why, after firing Berra, the Mets brought up in-house company yes-men like Joe Frazier and Roy McMillan, guys who didn't have the major league backround or managerial track record. Even Joe Torre was more of a popularity choice then a true answer because he had never managed before.

BTW, I also agree that it's a travesty that Hodges isn't in the Hall of Fame. He was one of the greatest fielding first basemen in history as well as a damned good hitter for many pennant-winning Dodger teams. Even with Jackie, Pee Wee, Duke and the others, they wouldn't have won without Gil Hodges.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"There is one thing the second-guesser does not take into consideration. The man in the stands, the man in the pressbox, is not always on top of the situation."
~ Gil Hodges in 1969

[theAmazingMet]

He was the dominant power hitting firstbaseman in the NL during his time, and a great defensive player as well. He is as much a victim of playing with so many other HOF players as anything he didn't do on the field. If Gil were a Pirate, Philly or Cub he would be a HOF. Throw in his job managing the Mets to a WS title and he is a lock. People cry about Santo and others, but they don't hold a candle to Gil as far as who should be in the Hall.

[metfan13]

He was the dominant power hitting firstbaseman in the NL during his time, and a great defensive player as well. He is as much a victim of playing with so many other HOF players as anything he didn't do on the field. If Gil were a Pirate, Philly or Cub he would be a HOF. Throw in his job managing the Mets to a WS title and he is a lock. People cry about Santo and others, but they don't hold a candle to Gil as far as who should be in the Hall.

Yeah, actually Santo has as valid a case as Hodges. Playing in the hitting depressed 60's v. the better hitting 50's Santo put up very comparable numbers to Hodges. And he was himself a multiple Gold Glove winner.

Take a look at them side by side. Not much difference there.

[theAmazingMet]

Yeah, actually Santo has as valid a case as Hodges. Playing in the hitting depressed 60's v. the better hitting 50's Santo put up very comparable numbers to Hodges. And he was himself a multiple Gold Glove winner.

Take a look at them side by side. Not much difference there.

Not as far as playing. But Gil has what Santo never got. Twice. He also had a career that extended beyond playing. I'm just sick of everyone crying about Santo when Gil has just as compelling, if not more so, argument for inclusion.

[metfan13]

Not as far as playing. But Gil has what Santo never got. Twice. He also had a career that extended beyond playing. I'm just sick of everyone crying about Santo when Gil has just as compelling, if not more so, argument for inclusion.

What, two WS wins as a player? Don't think you can hold a team event against Santo.

Yes Hodges had a brief but successful managerial career. Santo has also spent years involved in baseball as an announcer.

[theAmazingMet]

People love the trump up Santo like he is some type of mythical freedom fighter, while Gil is often times brushed aside as an afterthought, which is ridiculous. If I were starting a team tommorrow and had to choose between Gil and Santo I would take Gil in a second. I'm sure most here would agree with me, after all this is a thread about Gil Hodges. I brought up Santo to prove that the injustice surronding Gil not being in the HOF is also a by-product of other players who are not as worthy being trumpeted more so. I'm sure this would make for a great debate in the General Baseball topic Hall of Fame.

[metfan13]

People love the trump up Santo like he is some type of mythical freedom fighter, while Gil is often times brushed aside as an afterthought, which is ridiculous. If I were starting a team tommorrow and had to choose between Gil and Santo I would take Gil in a second. I'm sure most here would agree with me, after all this is a thread about Gil Hodges. I brought up Santo to prove that the injustice surronding Gil not being in the HOF is also a by-product of other players who are not as worthy being trumpeted more so. I'm sure this would make for a great debate in the General Baseball topic Hall of Fame, but in the Gil thread on a Mets board it's not.

This being a Mets board , yes.

Out in the baseball world, more might take the 3B giving you that production and GG defense over the 1B.

And I think you overstate the campaign for Santo as compared to Hodges. Both have their local passionate supporters.

[theAmazingMet]

This being a Mets board , yes.

Out in the baseball world, more might take the 3B giving you that production and GG defense over the 1B.

And I think you overstate the campaign for Santo as compared to Hodges. Both have their local passionate supporters.

And I hope both do eventually get in the HOF. I got nothing against Santo, I just feel Gil's argument is more compelling.

[metfan13]

And I hope both do eventually get in the HOF. I got nothing against Santo, I just feel Gil's argument is more compelling.

As a lifelong Mets fan I'd pick Hodges too and admit that any small difference either way is covered by hometown bias.

There's really not a whole lot of difference anyway, so Mets first then Cubs.

[mandrake]

IMHO, Gil Hodges stats were at least as good as Tony Perez, and he's in.
Hodges was kept out by that smurf Earl Weaver who held a grudge dating back to 1969, and also Ted Williams seemed to nurse a grudge going back to the Washington Senators days.

If Gil had lived, again IMHO, Whitey Herzog stays in the organization and eventually takes over.

One thing I will say about Yogi and the '73 WS. It may be old hat, but I truly believe Seaver went over his head and messed with the roation for games six and seven in Oakland. Yogi's version is he wanted George Stone, 12-3 record, to pitch game 6 and have Seaver with 4 days rest for a potential game 7 with the lefty Matlack in relief. Yogi's version has Seaver angry that Kooz was on the hill when they won in 1969 and that only Seaver should be out there to wrap it up in Game 6 even if he only had 3 days rest. That would also leave Matlack on 3 days rest to start Game 7. Seaver denies Yogi's version.

End of rant !:banghead: That series still bugs me 36 years later.

[Mister B.]

IMHO, Gil Hodges stats were at least as good as Tony Perez, and he's in.
Hodges was kept out by that smurf Earl Weaver who held a grudge dating back to 1969, and also Ted Williams seemed to nurse a grudge going back to the Washington Senators days.

If Gil had lived, again IMHO, Whitey Herzog stays in the organization and eventually takes over.

One thing I will say about Yogi and the '73 WS. It may be old hat, but I truly believe Seaver went over his head and messed with the roation for games six and seven in Oakland. Yogi's version is he wanted George Stone, 12-3 record, to pitch game 6 and have Seaver with 4 days rest for a potential game 7 with the lefty Matlack in relief. Yogi's version has Seaver angry that Kooz was on the hill when they won in 1969 and that only Seaver should be out there to wrap it up in Game 6 even if he only had 3 days rest. That would also leave Matlack on 3 days rest to start Game 7. Seaver denies Yogi's version.

End of rant !:banghead: That series still bugs me 36 years later.

Ditto. So winnable.

Of course, it was relatively uncommon to use a #4 starter in the WS back then. (Thankfully that changed or we wouldn't have seen Al Nipper in Game 4, in 1986.)

Seaver was throwing gas early in Game 3 on a Tuesday night, overpowering everybody. He tired, gave up the lead, and they lost in 10 I think. To have him fresh on Saturday afternoon, well under 4 days after throwing his last pitch on Tuesday night, was unlikely.

Matlack was screaming at reporters trying to talk to him before Game 7 - not so good.

Perhaps they didn't "deserve" to win after basically a .500 season (lots of injuries), but as history has shown, such opportunities are all too rare and you have to seize them when they present themselves.

And yeah, Gil should be in the Hall; what a pillar of class and intergrity on top of his numbers. I wish he hadn't resumed smoking at some point after he recovered from his first heart attack in 1968. If it had been as well known back then how toxic that is, maybe he'd still be with us.

Thus concludes post #300, responding to mandrake, gentleman and scholar. :waving

[Long Island Mike]

Everyone: Good insight from all on how things might have been for the Mets if Gil Hodges had lived. I felt that the 1969 Mets were an extended "Family" of sorts and I now feel that they should have been kept together as much as possible - instead they traded away players that became stars like Amos Otis (Was THAT the Joe Foy trade I remember?) and the ill-fated Jim Fregosi
trade in which the Mets gave away Nolan Ryan.

The questions would have been 1973 with that NL Championship team along
with the return of Willie Mays and 1975 and later after Mrs. Payson passed away in how Gil Hodges would have handled things. I now think the sharp downturn in 1977 may not have happened after all with Gil at the managerial helm. Who knows how he would have handled the new Free Agency Era...

Mets history may have been quite different had Gil Hodges lived!
I agree with all here-he belongs in the BBHOF!
Thoughts and insight by Long Island Mike

[mandrake]

Ditto. So winnable.

Of course, it was relatively uncommon to use a #4 starter in the WS back then. (Thankfully that changed or we wouldn't have seen Al Nipper in Game 4, in 1986.)

Seaver was throwing gas early in Game 3 on a Tuesday night, overpowering everybody. He tired, gave up the lead, and they lost in 10 I think. To have him fresh on Saturday afternoon, well under 4 days after throwing his last pitch on Tuesday night, was unlikely.

Matlack was screaming at reporters trying to talk to him before Game 7 - not so good.

Perhaps they didn't "deserve" to win after basically a .500 season (lots of injuries), but as history has shown, such opportunities are all too rare and you have to seize them when they present themselves.

And yeah, Gil should be in the Hall; what a pillar of class and intergrity on top of his numbers. I wish he hadn't resumed smoking at some point after he recovered from his first heart attack in 1968. If it had been as well known back then how toxic that is, maybe he'd still be with us.

Thus concludes post #300, responding to mandrake, gentleman and scholar. :waving

Mr B....are we talking about throwing smoke ...or blowing smoke !!!!

Anyway, George Stone was the key to winning the NL east. He was 12-3 with one save, and the Mets were only 82-79. Stone did get the save in game 2 of the WS, and Yogi's plan seemed great.

A rested Seaver on 4 full days rest on Sunday, with a very young Matlack available if needed as a lefty out of the pen. Matlack was winded tighter than a cheap watch for game 7 as a starter ! (Of course Kooz did his part throwing a 3 hit shut out in game 5).:)

Seaver has always denied Yogi's story, but why would Yogi lie about it? It does make a lot of sense. Stone had a great year....a lot like the Red Sox using Roger Moret in 1975 when he went 14-3.

[milladrive]

Gil was on a team that went to seven World Series (a homer away from eight) within thirteen years as a player, two of which he was on the winner. That they had to face the Roman Empire all but one of those years is a travesty. Eight-time All-Star, and three-time Gold Glove. He was Brooklyn royalty, yet the only regular member of that team that isn't honored upstate.

Then and only then can we consider his WS win as manager of the Mets and subsequently making the 60's laughing stock legitimatei nto the 70's. Then the guy had to go ahead and die, dang it. No doubt he would have had more influence on the team's front office in the following years.

I won't compare him to Santo or anyone else. A good case can be made for both, and each stands on his own merits. Both should be honored.

But hey, why even bother? Cooperstown's a joke.

[Joe Rigatoni]

IMHO, Gil Hodges stats were at least as good as Tony Perez, and he's in.
Hodges was kept out by that smurf Earl Weaver who held a grudge dating back to 1969, and also Ted Williams seemed to nurse a grudge going back to the Washington Senators days.

If Gil had lived, again IMHO, Whitey Herzog stays in the organization and eventually takes over.

One thing I will say about Yogi and the '73 WS. It may be old hat, but I truly believe Seaver went over his head and messed with the roation for games six and seven in Oakland. Yogi's version is he wanted George Stone, 12-3 record, to pitch game 6 and have Seaver with 4 days rest for a potential game 7 with the lefty Matlack in relief. Yogi's version has Seaver angry that Kooz was on the hill when they won in 1969 and that only Seaver should be out there to wrap it up in Game 6 even if he only had 3 days rest. That would also leave Matlack on 3 days rest to start Game 7. Seaver denies Yogi's version.

End of rant !:banghead: That series still bugs me 36 years later.

I agree with everything you said as that series still bugs me 36 years later
as well.To this day I always wanted to know in the 1973 NLCS between
the Mets and the Reds in a similar situation the Mets were up 2 games to 1
in a best of five and yet Yogi pitched Stone in Game 4 and then he pitched
Seaver in Game 5.Seaver would have 3 days rest for Game 4 of the NLCS
just like he had 3 days rest for Game 6 of the World Series.If Yogi had no
problem setting it up this way for the NLCS then why didn't he do the same
thing in the World Series? Well,barring giving all parties involved a truth
serum,unfortunately I guess we'll never really know.

[JPS]

What, two WS wins as a player? Don't think you can hold a team event against Santo.

Yes Hodges had a brief but successful managerial career. Santo has also spent years involved in baseball as an announcer.I know this is somewhat off topic, but I have a major league rant against Ron :banghead: Santo and here's why: Several years ago when baseball broadcasts on the Web were still free I went online to listen to a Mets/Cubs game from Wrigley (I live in Texas, so the Mets broadcasts were unavailable). The Mets feed wasn't on so I listened to the Cubs announcers just in time to hear Santo blurt, "I never liked the Mets and I never liked Met fans," and he went on a whining diatribe ripping the Mets and their fans for the entire inning. Real classy there, Ron. I don't care if mostly Cub fans are listening, you don't say something like that on the air. Period. Say it in your blog, or your column, or write a book and cry us a freaking river, but keep at least a little ethics in your broadcasts (A wasted comment since he still does it, as do many home "announcers" these days).

You know what I think it is with Santo? It seems as if many members of the '69 Cubs and Orioles were psychologically damaged by the Mets victory that year. In later years as a coach with the Cubs, Billy Williams didn't hide his discomfort whenever somebody mentioned 1969. When Frank Robinson managed the Giants, he was almost indignant when asked about the '69 Mets when the Giants came to Shea. "I don't wanna talk about it. Don't wanna talk about it," is all he said. The sports media in Houston still has a vendetta against the Mets because of 1986. I hear it in their tones of voices occassionally whenever the Mets are a topic. I think it's funny, actually. Oh well...

Ron Santo has no class as an announcer. But as a player, he was the best third baseman in the National League throughout his career and he belongs in the Hall (Counterpoint: If that's truly the case, then why haven't the Cubs retired his number?) If the Cubs had won a pennant or two, he'd be in. There's no denying that as a contributing factor. But how can anyone take the selection committee seriously when some of them have the dopey policy of not voting for anyone in their first year of eligibility, no matter who it is? Those clowns should be run out of the damned business.

....whew...I feel much better now. :)

[metfan13]

I know this is somewhat off topic, but I have a major league rant against Ron :banghead: Santo and here's why: Several years ago when baseball broadcasts on the Web were still free I went online to listen to a Mets/Cubs game from Wrigley (I live in Texas, so the Mets broadcasts were unavailable). The Mets feed wasn't on so I listened to the Cubs announcers just in time to hear Santo blurt, "I never liked the Mets and I never liked Met fans," and he went on a whining diatribe ripping the Mets and their fans for the entire inning. Real classy there, Ron. I don't care if mostly Cub fans are listening, you don't say something like that on the air. Period. Say it in your blog, or your column, or write a book and cry us a freaking river, but keep at least a little ethics in your broadcasts (A wasted comment since he still does it, as do many home "announcers" these days).

You know what I think it is with Santo? It seems as if many members of the '69 Cubs and Orioles were psychologically damaged by the Mets victory that year. In later years as a coach with the Cubs, Billy Williams didn't hide his discomfort whenever somebody mentioned 1969. When Frank Robinson managed the Giants, he was almost indignant when asked about the '69 Mets when the Giants came to Shea. "I don't wanna talk about it. Don't wanna talk about it," is all he said. The sports media in Houston still has a vendetta against the Mets because of 1986. I hear it in their tones of voices occassionally whenever the Mets are a topic. I think it's funny, actually. Oh well...

Ron Santo has no class as an announcer. But as a player, he was the best third baseman in the National League throughout his career and he belongs in the Hall (Counterpoint: If that's truly the case, then why haven't the Cubs retired his number?) If the Cubs had won a pennant or two, he'd be in. There's no denying that as a contributing factor. But how can anyone take the selection committee seriously when some of them have the dopey policy of not voting for anyone in their first year of eligibility, no matter who it is? Those clowns should be run out of the damned business.

....whew...I feel much better now. :)

Maybe it's playing all those day games. I've heard Mark Grace do games for Arizona that were just painful.