Gil Hodges

[Tyruscobb]

If these players’ contemporary voters, who watched them play their entire careers, didn’t think they were hall-of-fame worthy, why should modern voters, who never actually saw them play, now find them worthy?

I agree there are exceptions, especially if racism or other factors kept a worthy player out, but if these factors weren’t present at the original time, modern voters should not reweigh these players’ worthiness worthiness when the contemporary voters, who were in the best position to decide, said no.

Just my two cents.

[Jobu]

Another Hodges photo.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

If these players’ contemporary voters, who watched them play their entire careers, didn’t think they were hall-of-fame worthy, why should modern voters, who never actually saw them play, now find them worthy?

I agree there are exceptions, especially if racism or other factors kept a worthy player out, but if these factors weren’t present at the original time, modern voters should not reweigh these players’ worthiness worthiness when the contemporary voters, who were in the best position to decide, said no.

Just my two cents.

You would think this would be correct, but then you can find clear examples of oversights. The best one might be that Arky Vaughan had to go in through the veterans, and you can make an easy case for him being the second best shortstop ever still to this day, more than 35 years after he finally went in.

You may have only been talking about these particular guys, but we can find plenty of worthy 19th century players still and the people who covered them didn't get a chance to vote on them. An example would be Bill Dahlen, who SHOULD finally get in tomorrow. The guy ranks more valuable than Derek Jeter as a shortstop in NY, yet Jeter went in first ballot with all but one vote and all anyone can wonder is why he didn't get that vote. How about wondering why a better player who retired 110 years ago can't get in? That's why the veterans committee is necessary.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I agree there are exceptions

I agree with what you say about players' peers evaluations in their time and after for enshrinement.

However, I feel Gil Hodges is perhaps the most egregious oversight out there, the single most glaring exception.

[Snapolit1]

https://www.gilhodgesfilm.com/

[jingram058]

Here is a card I picked up a couple of years ago, one of those "art" or "what if" cards, supposedly produced in limited numbers. It is not vintage, but certainly looks like it is. I like it for what Stan Musial had to say about Gil Hodges.

[bbcard1]

His stats look light to me. While I appreciate his service, it was far from a sure thing he would have spent much if any time with the Dodgers during those years. He's in the Don Mattingly/Jason Giambi/Will Clark/Norm Cash range, basically Tony Perez light. It's not an egregious oversight nor world it be a head scratching selection.

[G1911]

Personally, I think Hodges is real borderline. Modern metrics, and comparisons to the league are not very friendly to him. A 120 OPS+ is not very impressive for a first baseman HOFer. WAR is not a good look. He never led the league in anything but games played and strikeouts. His most similar players are other guys who had a case, but didn't make the Hall. Not a single HOFer in his top 10.

I think he's right on the border, I'd probably vote for him on a combination of his playing and managerial resume (I would probably do this for others too, fine players who were good managers but haven't made the hall because usually one or the other is considered), but he's a bottom tier one for me.

I am, however, surprised he is not in the hall already. Beloved player, Miracle Mets manager, nice guy, huge fan base, Brooklyn Dodger from the 1950's. These things tend to push certain people in whose numbers by themselves aren't quite there, but it never has for Hodges.

If he was a 1B in Cincinnati or Washington, we wouldn't be having this talk.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think he's right on the border, I'd probably vote for him on a combination of his playing and managerial resume (I would probably do this for others too, fine players who were good managers but haven't made the hall because usually one or the other is considered), but he's a bottom tier one for me.

Although you can never know what the Hall of Fame voters might do, you can't really combine player and manager or player and executive roles...they are supposed to be considered independently. If you put them together, Bill White becomes and attractive candidate.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

Personally, I think Hodges is real borderline. Modern metrics, and comparisons to the league are not very friendly to him. A 120 OPS+ is not very impressive for a first baseman HOFer. WAR is not a good look. He never led the league in anything but games played and strikeouts. His most similar players are other guys who had a case, but didn't make the Hall. Not a single HOFer in his top 10.

I think he's right on the border, I'd probably vote for him on a combination of his playing and managerial resume (I would probably do this for others too, fine players who were good managers but haven't made the hall because usually one or the other is considered), but he's a bottom tier one for me.

I am, however, surprised he is not in the hall already. Beloved player, Miracle Mets manager, nice guy, huge fan base, Brooklyn Dodger from the 1950's. These things tend to push certain people in whose numbers by themselves aren't quite there, but it never has for Hodges.

If he was a 1B in Cincinnati or Washington, we wouldn't be having this talk.

+1, you said almost everything I was thinking, and better than I would have.

I think this thread is interesting is because the guys who we argue about the most are the "great human beings" guys: Hodges, Minoso, O'Neill, even Mel Harder and Cecil Travis (my choices.). Add in Dale Murphy, or Don Mattingly, who was the first yankee I couldn't hate.

[Brianruns10]

Why do you suppose Ted Williams did what he did to keep Hodges out of the HoF years ago? Hodges seemingly had such a great reputation, being well liked, but did Williams have a grudge against him? Or against Campanella, whose vote he threw out on that technicality?

Glad that the wrong has been righted. Hodges deserved induction years ago.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

His stats look light to me. While I appreciate his service, it was far from a sure thing he would have spent much if any time with the Dodgers during those years. He's in the Don Mattingly/Jason Giambi/Will Clark/Norm Cash range, basically Tony Perez light. It's not an egregious oversight nor world it be a head scratching selection.

100% disagree with this.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by jingram058

100% disagree with this.

You understand you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with stats.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

His stats look light to me. While I appreciate his service, it was far from a sure thing he would have spent much if any time with the Dodgers during those years. He's in the Don Mattingly/Jason Giambi/Will Clark/Norm Cash range, basically Tony Perez light. It's not an egregious oversight nor world it be a head scratching selection.

He ranks 40th under the JAWS formula for 1st basemen. I think he's getting a lot of love based on nostalgia, Dodgers, and popularity. There's a reason he hasn't made it after several decades of eligibility. Would it be the worst thing that's ever happened to the Hall, of course not.