Gil Hodges

[commishbob]

Agree completely. I’m still baffled by his excursion from the Hall. It’s time for him and Minoso to get there.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Agree completely. I’m still baffled by his excursion from the Hall. It’s time for him and Minoso to get there.

+1 Agree hopefully they both get in finally and get the recognition they both truly deserve

[cgjackson222]

It seems like Hodges being Manager of the Miracle Mets should tip the balance in his favor and make him Hall worthy.

I think the issue people have is that he never lead the league in anything except Strikeouts and Sac Flys (and games).

I'd definitely like to see him get in, but the math may not be in his favor. Each member of the committee only gets 4 votes, and they may go for Minoso, Dick Allen, Tony Oliva, and Jim Kaat instead of Hodges.

[ThomasL]

He also played 6man football in High School so that puts him over the hump with me

[Cmvorce]

For the 52 Topps set I'm working on, I keep my HOFers slabbed and put the non-HOFers in the binder. My Gil Hodges is, and (regardless of voting outcome) will remain, slabbed. I think it's insane he isn't in.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Cmvorce

For the 52 Topps set I'm working on, I keep my HOFers slabbed and put the non-HOFers in the binder. My Gil Hodges is, and (regardless of voting outcome) will remain, slabbed. I think it's insane he isn't in.

Agree.... and on a related note, I think his '52 Topps card is one of the top 3 (aesthetically speaking) in the entire set.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Agree.... and on a related note, I think his '52 Topps card is one of the top 3 (aesthetically speaking) in the entire set.

Every thread needs a pic!

[Yoda]

Growing up, I saw Hodges play numerous times with my Dad at Ebbets Field, both of us being ardent Dodgers' fans. I remember one game clearly when he hit an opposite field homer over the old Schaffer Beer sign in right field. The ball seemed to soar endlessly. He was the perfect 1st baseman for Jackie, always encouraging and supportive. I don't know how many Golden Gloves he won, but it must be several. And he was a right hander playing 1st. Enough already, the man needs to be enshrined.

[nat]

From the hall of fame's rules on voting:

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

The rules give no instructions on how these are to be weighted, but historically, integrity, sportsmanship, and character have been given almost no weight by the voters. The only notable exception has been the exclusion of steroid users. Excluding Hodges has been (and will be, if he doesn't get voted in) entirely consistent with the standards that are implicit in the hall's history of voting.

The way the ballot is structured also makes electing anyone hard. You're allowed to vote for a max of four, but the ballots usually have a bunch of guys who are all approximately equally qualified, and with a 75% threshold for election, that's an invitation to split the vote and not elect anyone. When one of the era committees does elect someone, it often seems that they had some particular rooting section in the electorate, who can rally votes in their favor, as reportedly happened with LaRussa and Reisendorf in getting Baines elected.

[skelly423]

It's always interesting that character can be used to exclude people, but it never seems to work the other way. Exceptionally high character never seems to push a 50-50 candidate over the top.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by skelly423

It's always interesting that character can be used to exclude people, but it never seems to work the other way. Exceptionally high character never seems to push a 50-50 candidate over the top.

Yeah, how about 3 years of military service including a Bronze Star in WW2. Might be a relevant fact to consider when you want to argue that a guy's numbers are a little light.

3 YEARS!!!! I know he wasn't the only one. Today, every time a player spends a few hours at a charity event his people are blasting it out to the universe.

[vthobby]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Yeah, how about 3 years of military service including a Bronze Star in WW2. Might be a relevant fact to consider when you want to argue that a guy's numbers are a little light.

3 YEARS!!!! I know he wasn't the only one. Today, every time a player spends a few hours at a charity event his people are blasting it out to the universe.

Fact: I love Gil Hodges and I'm not ashamed to say it.

2 quotes by Jackie Robinson tell me my heart is on the right path:

#1 What Jackie said of Gil's passing: "next to my son's death, this is the worst day of my life".

#2 And this by Jackie "He was the core of the Brooklyn Dodgers."

Also, I've never talked about this in public or social media but I am floored to know and ashamed that I did not know that Gil was awarded the Bronze Star in Combat. It is literally the only thing I have in common with Gil. I was awarded the Bronze Star in Afghanistan 2010-11 US Army and it is one of the things I really covet in life.

Thanks Steve for bringing that to light.

Peace, Mike

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by skelly423

It's always interesting that character can be used to exclude people, but it never seems to work the other way. Exceptionally high character never seems to push a 50-50 candidate over the top.

Meet Ray Schalk. Lifetime .253 hitter with 11 home runs. Top RBI year he had 61. 1345 career hits. Never led the league in any offensive category. Managed 2 years, had losing records both times.

Good catcher defensively, but I would say that if not for the dishonesty of his teammates, and his good character in stark contrast, Schalk would be nowhere near the HOF.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Meet Ray Schalk. Lifetime .253 hitter with 11 home runs. Top RBI year he had 61. 1345 career hits. Never led the league in any offensive category. Managed 2 years, had losing records both times.

Good catcher defensively, but I would say that if not for the dishonesty of his teammates, and his good character in stark contrast, Schalk would be nowhere near the HOF.

GREAT defensive catcher which is why he really was elected...he was widely considered the best defensive catcher of that era....Now Dickie Kerr received a few HOF votes amazingly and that you could say was 100% due to being honest and a star in the 1919 WS

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by skelly423

It's always interesting that character can be used to exclude people, but it never seems to work the other way. Exceptionally high character never seems to push a 50-50 candidate over the top.

People prefer focusing on negatives (especially when it comes to someone else's character, since it makes them feel better about themselves).

Speaking of, with Hodges in, will the excluded focus now move mostly to Dick Allen?

Despite his bad rep, how is a guy with an OPS+ of 156 over 7300+ plate appearances (done during the lowest scoring live ball period in MLB history) not a HOF player at this point?

[jingram058]

I look at it this way. There are guys in the HOF who probably should not be. And a lot of guys who aren't but should be. At the top of the list who should be, to me, is Gil Hodges. I personally think that the HOF does not matter to most people. But I feel, and have always believed frankly, that Gil Hodges ought to be in. My youngest sister (I am 63, she is 75), who knows something about baseball, told me that Gil Hodges was a household name, as much so as anyone. For him not to be in is ridiculous. I think if he doesn't get in this go around, he never will.