Golden Era Hall of Fame Ballot announced

Baseball Rarities · #1 10-31-2014, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batter67up

GIL Hodges

Hodges led all major-league first basemen of the 1950s in the following categories: home runs (310), games (1,477), at bats (5,313), runs (890), hits (1,491), runs batted in (1,001), total bases (2,733), strikeouts (882), and extra-base hits (585). He made the All-Star team eight times, every year from 1949-55 and again in 1957, the most of any first baseman of the time. In addition, Hodges won Gold Gloves the first three years they were given out (1957-59) and was considered the finest defensive first baseman of the era. Also, he was second among all players in the 1950s in home runs and RBIs, third in total bases and eighth in runs.

I also think Hodges should be strongly considered for the Hall of Fame. Anyone who dominates his position (perennial all-star) for a 10 to 12 year span should be given serious consideration. This is why I agreed with putting Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame. It is also why I think that Steve Garvey is a borderline HOFer also. His stats (besides home runs) from 1974-83 are very similar to Hodges' 10 year stats that were posted above.

Games 1,499 - 1,477
Home Runs 200 - 310
At Bats 5,967 - 5,313
Runs 820 - 890
Hits 1820 - 1,491
RBI 939 - 1,001
Total Bases 2,785 - 2,733
Extra-Base Hits 536 - 585
All-Star Teams 8 - 8
Gold Gloves 4 - 3 (Hodges was a superior fielder)

Plus, Garvey won an MVP while he finished in the top 6 in MVP voting 5 times in a 7 year span. That is pretty impressive.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 10-31-2014, 05:47 PM

Garvey doesn't look so good according to the new wave stats. His "JAWS" rating places him only a remarkable 47th among first basemen. Part of the issue I think is that his on base percentage was not much higher than his BA because he rarely walked. For someone with 6 200 hit seasons (or was it more?) to rate this low is baffling.

Baseball Rarities · #3 10-31-2014, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Garvey doesn't look so good according to the new wave stats. His "JAWS" rating places him only a remarkable 47th among first basemen. Part of the issue I think is that his on base percentage was not much higher than his BA because he rarely walked. For someone with 6 200 hit seasons (or was it more?) to rate this low is baffling.

Yeah, his stats do not stack up very well to modern metrics. I just think that it is pretty special when a player was considered the best at his position for a 10 to 12 year span. His MVP voting was pretty good too.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 10-31-2014, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Yeah, his stats do not stack up very well to modern metrics. I just think that it is pretty special when a player was considered the best at his position for a 10 to 12 year span. His MVP voting was pretty good too.

Kevin yeah but by that token Bill Freehan was the best AL catcher, by far, from say the mid 60s through the mid 70s. All star every year I would guess. HOFer?

Baseball Rarities · #5 10-31-2014, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Kevin yeah but by that token Bill Freehan was the best AL catcher, by far, from say the mid 60s through the mid 70s. All star every year I would guess. HOFer?

Yeah, great example. Tim Raines, Tony Oliva and Dale Murphy are others.

I just remember Garvey always being one of the most clutch and feared hitters of his time. He was a fixture of all those All-Star games that I watched as a kid. All of the perennial All-Stars (Schmidt, Morgan, Rose, Brock, Bench, Carew, Brett, Jackson, Fisk, Rice, Winfield, Dawson, Carter etc.) seem to be worthy of the Hall of Fame - Rose would be there if it was based on stats alone. I just always assumed that Garvey would get there too.

But, by looking at his lifetime stats, it is easy to see why he is not there. They really are not that impressive.

calvindog · #6 10-31-2014, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I also think Hodges should be strongly considered for the Hall of Fame. Anyone who dominates his position (perennial all-star) for a 10 to 12 year span should be given serious consideration. This is why I agreed with putting Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame. It is also why I think that Steve Garvey is a borderline HOFer also. His stats (besides home runs) from 1974-83 are very similar to Hodges' 10 year stats that were posted above.

Games 1,499 - 1,477
Home Runs 200 - 310
At Bats 5,967 - 5,313
Runs 820 - 890
Hits 1820 - 1,491
RBI 939 - 1,001
Total Bases 2,785 - 2,733
Extra-Base Hits 536 - 585
All-Star Teams 8 - 8
Gold Gloves 4 - 3 (Hodges was a superior fielder)

Plus, Garvey won an MVP while he finished in the top 6 in MVP voting 5 times in a 7 year span. That is pretty impressive.

This is my thinking exactly, including the comments about Garvey and Hodges. If a player dominates his era he deserves induction to the HOF because comparing stats over decades is simply unfair. Rice deserved to be in as probably does Garvey and certainly Hodges. Was Don Sutton a more dominant player of his era or did he just play longer than many others? If Tommy John won a few more games he would have had 300 -- and easily been inducted. It's silly to have bright line cutoffs on stats and not simply determine if the player dominated when he played.

Peter_Spaeth · #7 10-31-2014, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

This is my thinking exactly, including the comments about Garvey and Hodges. If a player dominates his era he deserves induction to the HOF because comparing stats over decades is simply unfair. Rice deserved to be in as probably does Garvey and certainly Hodges. Was Don Sutton a more dominant player of his era or did he just play longer than many others? If Tommy John won a few more games he would have had 300 -- and easily been inducted. It's silly to have bright line cutoffs on stats and not simply determine if the player dominated when he played.

How did Steve Garvey "dominate" his era? He won no batting titles, no HR or RBI titles, never led the league in doubles. Not to say he was not a great player, but dominant seems overstating it.

nolemmings · #8 10-31-2014, 06:55 PM

Oliva was dominant. Only played 11 full seasons and led the league in hits 5 of those, with three batting crowns and 4 LL in doubles. One slg. pct title , a ROY and two runner-up MVPs, one to his teammate. Not bad.

calvindog · #9 10-31-2014, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How did Steve Garvey "dominate" his era? He won no batting titles, no HR or RBI titles, never led the league in doubles. Not to say he was not a great player, but dominant seems overstating it.

Garvey had 10 AS game appearances and 6 top 11 MVP finishes including 5 years in a row. How does that not indicate dominance in his era?

Plus his consecutive games played streak and multiple Gold Gloves.

Peter_Spaeth · #10 10-31-2014, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Garvey had 10 AS game appearances and 6 top 11 MVP finishes including 5 years in a row. How does that not indicate dominance in his era?

Plus his consecutive games played streak and multiple Gold Gloves.

Bill Freehan was an eleven time all star with a 2 and a 3 MVP finish. I bet I could find many other examples you wouldn't consider to be dominant players with lots of "top 11" MVP finishes.

Different definitions of dominance I guess.

calvindog · #11 10-31-2014, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill Freehan was an eleven time all star with a 2 and a 3 MVP finish. I bet I could find many other examples you wouldn't consider to be dominant players with lots of "top 11" MVP finishes.

Different definitions of dominance I guess.

Bill Freehan played a position in which he could routinely bat .230 and make an AS game. Garvey was a much superior hitter and finished with 1000 more hits. Not only did Garvey win an MVP but as I said, he was judged to be one of the top 11 players in the league 6 times and an AS 10 times. He was also the best player on a team that appeared in 4 World Series. His overall numbers may not bear it out but he was certainly one of the top players in his era as anyone who grew up in the 70s would recall.

Peter_Spaeth · #12 10-31-2014, 07:35 PM

Well now you have changed your tune. Yes he was one of the top players of his era. I absolutely agree. That, to me, does not equate to being a dominant player. Semantics perhaps.

Orioles1954 · #13 10-31-2014, 08:32 PM

Well, at least we had the obligatory "the Hall of Fame is way too watered down and a ton of people should be kicked out" talking point. By the way, what is a "stat compiler" other than someone who was consistently productive over a long stretch of time? If it's so easy for a "stat compiler" to get 300 wins or 3,000 hits then why aren't there hundreds more of them? Wait, could it be because they were actually really great?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hall of Fame Ballot Announced	bigtrain	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	34	01-08-2014 03:45 PM
HOF Golden Era Ballot	bigtrain	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	20	12-05-2011 09:26 PM
Baseball Hall of Fame Golden Era vote set for Dec. 5 ...	Chris-Counts	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	48	11-06-2011 12:19 PM
HOF Ballot Announced	paul	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	10	11-09-2010 11:22 PM
Hall of Fame Veterans Committee Ballot	paul	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	21	11-15-2009 08:43 PM