Gil Hodges HOFer anyone?

[dgarza]

The BBWAA seemed to favor Gil Hodges to the tune of voting a near consistent 60+% on the HOF ballots in the past.

The VC also likes Gil Hodges at about 60%.

How do you vote?

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by dgarza
The BBWAA seemed to favor Gil Hodges to the tune of voting a near consistent 60+% on the HOF ballots in the past.

The VC also likes Gil Hodges at about 60%.

How do you vote?

Check the Brooklyn forum, this subject has been done to death. Oh i vote no.

[Brad Harris]

Hodges first appeared on the BBWAA ballot in 1969. That summer, he piloted the "Miracle Mets" to a World Championship. His percentage of support doubled immediately, rising from 24% to 48% that winter.

He kicked around there for a few seasons (garnering 50% in 1971 and dropping back to 40% in 1972), but then he died in April of 1972 at the age of 47 and his vote totals lept by some 57 votes at the end of that year (in the 1973 election), giving him 57% support! No doubt, those 57 voters were more sympathetic to the man's early death than they were convinced he was a great ballplayer.

He continued to hover between 49%-61% for the rest of his tenure on the ballot until his final year - which was no doubt pointed out to several voters, when his total shot up again by some 32 votes, leaping from 49% in 1982 to 63% in 1983.

Hodges seems to have been the recipient of a fair number of votes for reasons passing his status as a good/great player.

(1) Hodges received a tremendous boost in attention for winning the World Series with the Mets.

(2) Hodges received a very good boost in votes upon dying young.

(3) Hodges received another big boost as writers pushed to get him elected before he dropped off the ballot.

Hodges was a good player who played on great teams and managed a famous team. Almost his entire baseball career was spent in greater New York City and he was a popular player and manager on the teams for which he worked.

Hodges died young and was beloved. That, to me, explains the fact that he's the only man to receive more than 50% support in a single election yet never be eventually inducted into the Hall of Fame.

I've argued against his election before and I always seem to gain a little more respect for him each time I dig deeper into the man's career and character, but in my opinion, he falls a little short.

If the Veterans Committee wants to select someone with a good player and manager resume, why doesn't Joe Torre get more love?

[dgarza]

Originally posted by Chancellor


Hodges seems to have been the recipient of a fair number of votes for reasons passing his status as a good/great player.

(1) Hodges received a tremendous boost in attention for winning the World Series with the Mets.

(2) Hodges received a very good boost in votes upon dying young.

(3) Hodges received another big boost as writers pushed to get him elected before he dropped off the ballot.

But he is still highly considered...
20 years after his final vote on BBWAA...
30 years after his passing...
35 years after the Mets...
It seems voters would have given up or given in by now.

[Eddie Collins]

No.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally posted by dgarza
But he is still highly considered...
20 years after his final vote on BBWAA...
30 years after his passing...
35 years after the Mets...
It seems voters would have given up or given in by now.

That's the thing. One never knew how well a player did in previous VC elections. While Hodges did very well for a non-HOF'er in his years on the writer's ballot, can anyone say for certain how his peers and the others on the committee voted in regards to him before the current administration?

I don't remember how things turned out in 2003, but I think there wer a few players who did do better in the voting than Hodges.

[MetsFan11368]

An interesting take on this subject.....

" Tommy Holmes said that with Hodges' hands and his ability as well as his power, he would today be definitely headed for the Hall of Fame had he been able to play at short, his original position.....like Tommy Holmes, I believe Hodges could have been a great short stop".

James T. Farrell
My Baseball Diary

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Chancellor

If the Veterans Committee wants to select someone with a good player and manager resume, why doesn't Joe Torre get more love?

Because Torre hasn't quit yet. Once he retires, he's a mortal lock.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by JACKIE42
Check the Brooklyn forum, this subject has been done to death.

It has been done to death. I vote yes.

[nightal]

No.

[The Commissioner]

I've already typed to death on this one before. Anyone that could stay awake through my ramblings will recall that I was, and still am, a "yes" vote on this one.

[Archie Bunker]

when do the veterans committe.does any know?

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Archie Bunker
when do the veterans committe.does any know?

December 1, 2004 is when the next Players Ballot will be mailed to the Veterans Committee members. Gil Hodges would need 15 more votes than he received in 2003 to get elected.

[Brad Harris]

I think you can replace Hodges/Brooklyn/1950s with Perez/Cincinnati/1970s and the same holds true. You could have put Lee May, John Mayberry, Boog Powell or George Scott into that lineup and not lost any production. No one is clamoring for their induction either. And Perez was a big mistake. No need to compound it by inducting Hodges. At least, that's the way I see it.

[shlevine42]

As a Brooklyn fan who saw Hodges throughout his career, I say I'm up to here with the persistent, maudlin appeals to get Hodges into the Hall of Fame because: (take your pick)
1. He died too young
2. Other Dodgers are in, why not Gil?
3. Perez is in, why not Gil?
4. Gil's widow has been campaigning for him since he died, and now she's getting older and we have to get him in before SHE dies.

Hodges did not have a HOF career. He was on the BBWA ballot for 15 years. He wasn't voted in. Case closed.

Can we now put this issue to rest? PLEASE?

[tonypug]

Take Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda out of the hall and I agree Gil doesn't quite make it. The other two are in Gil belongs as well. It might be beaten to death, but it is still a controversial topic.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by tonypug
Take Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda out of the hall and I agree Gil doesn't quite make it. The other two are in Gil belongs as well. It might be beaten to death, but it is still a controversial topic.

Three wrongs do not make a right!

[Cougar]

I think all three of those guys belong in the Hall, but I also agree that the "if...then" argument is fallacious. With the Frisch teammates in, plus a handful of other clear mistakes, it could snowball fast.

[ci11829]

I don't think Hodges should be in the HOF, he had a few good years for his era.

[tonypug]

Hodges had 100 or more RBI's 7 straight years,70 or more 10 straight years, 20 or more Home Runs 11 straight years, made 10 All Star teams and won 3 Gold Gloves. Thats not just a few good years fr his era.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by tonypug
Hodges had 100 or more RBI's 7 straight years,70 or more 10 straight years, 20 or more Home Runs 11 straight years, made 10 All Star teams and won 3 Gold Gloves. Thats not just a few good years fr his era.

Also keep in mind that the Gold Glove wasn't even awarded until Hodges was in the twilight of his career. Had he won, perhaps as many as ten Gold Gloves would that have made a stronger impression on his H.O.F. resume?

[Brad Harris]

Not really. I mean...it didn't help Keith Hernandez much, did it?

[tonypug]

Don't try to compare Hernandez to Hodges. Election to the Hall is supposed to take into consideration, a ballplayers character and the way he conducts himself, on and off the field. That alone stops Hernandez from being considered. Hodges also had a much bigger role in his teams success.

[Zeth]

It didn't keep Ty Cobb or Rogers Hornsby out, either. (It probably did keep Dick Allen out, though.)

I'm not going to rehash arguments that have already been made, but it seems pretty clear to me Gil doesn't quite measure up to the standard.

[Cougar]

It seems to me that you can determine whether a person is a HOF hardliner or not simply by asking his position on Gil Hodges. I don't think there's more difference of opinion on any one guy, and it's pretty fundamental to how you see the Hall.

And the funny thing is, it's always genial. Other hard cases usually degenerate to name calling or insults, but the Hodges threads always stay nice.