Gil Hodges

[Peter_Spaeth]

IMO every generation uses what's available to get an edge. To suggest Bonds and McGwire were lowlife scum but the greenie generation was squeaky clean just seems misguided and horribly biased because we want to love the latter.

[ClementeFanOh]

Peter- that didn't take you long, did it? Still not buying what you are selling.
Lots of folks who, in some form or fashion defend these guys are often trying
to legitimize "their" time as fans in this sport we adore. It's not easy to admit
we were all being fooled (or many of us). I've skipped that part of the process
and just admit it was a mirage. Don't miss Sammy Sosa a bit

Once again, since the original post point was about Gil Hodges and not
pimply backed guys hitting a baseball 1000 feet, I'll repeat I'm glad Gil
made it.

Trent King

[ClementeFanOh]

Peter- just noticed your two extra, edgier, posts since I just replied. At no
time did I say 50s/60s guys were "squeaky clean". Seems like you don't like
being countered. I don't either, but I've made my point clear and you're not
convincing me otherwise. Last note on this topic, you had the tougher task
here and it's showing. Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well Trent it seemed a fair inference from you equating amphetamines to coffee that you were downplaying them, but if I misread you I apologize. So assuming Mays, Mantle, Aaron etc. used them, what IS your opinion?

[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?

[dealme]

Perhaps instead of Tommy John I should have suggested a candidate like Pete Rose or Joe Jackson for a less polarizing discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Don't disagree at all. I'm sure a large percentage of the male population 16-35 is strong enough to hit home runs, just not talented enough.

Exactamundo!!!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Belle played 10.5 seasons. His career totals pale in comparison to the numerous sluggers of his time.

Yes, career-ending injuries tend to do that to people. Sandy Koufax won a lot fewer games than Milt Pappas, too.

Originally Posted by G1911

For a guy whose whole argument is peak performance, his black ink is not very high, 28, 1 point over average. He never really deserved an MVP either, another hallmark for short-career-big-peak selections.

In 1995, he finished 2nd in MVP voting to Mo Vaughn despite having: more hits, more runs, more doubles, more homers, more walks, higher batting average, higher OBP, higher SLG, higher OPS+ (177 vs 144), more total bases, and higher WAR. That year he was the only player in MLB history to have 50 homers and 50 doubles in the same year. That is obviously MVP-level performance.

Beyond that, whether he was the most-deserving player in a given year doesn't mean he didn't put up MVP-level numbers. In 1994, he hit .357 with 36 homers in 2/3 of a season. That's CLEARLY MVP-level performance.

Fact is, the guy was a dominant hitter who put up monster numbers before being derailed by a career-ending injury. Numerous other players have had that overlooked including the three I mentioned previously (Koufax, Joss, Puckett). And, were it not for his (well-earned) surly reputation, it would be overlooked for Belle, too.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yes, career-ending injuries tend to do that to people. Sandy Koufax won a lot fewer games than Milt Pappas, too.



In 1995, he finished 2nd in MVP voting to Mo Vaughn despite having: more hits, more runs, more doubles, more homers, more walks, higher batting average, higher OBP, higher SLG, higher OPS+ (177 vs 144), more total bases, and higher WAR. That year he was the only player in MLB history to have 50 homers and 50 doubles in the same year. That is obviously MVP-level performance.

Beyond that, whether he was the most-deserving player in a given year doesn't mean he didn't put up MVP-level numbers. In 1994, he hit .357 with 36 homers in 2/3 of a season. That's CLEARLY MVP-level performance.

Fact is, the guy was a dominant hitter who put up monster numbers before being derailed by a career-ending injury. Numerous other players have had that overlooked including the three I mentioned previously (Koufax, Joss, Puckett). And, were it not for his (well-earned) surly reputation, it would be overlooked for Belle, too.

Yes, career ending injuries do that to people. No shit. That’s that why his career is short does not change the fact that his career WAS short, exactly as I said, and limits his WAR.

Vaughn was a terrible selection. WAR has Belle tied for third in the league. I don’t think second was unreasonable or that he was number 1 that year. I said he never really “deserved an MVP”, which is a separate thing from being better than the player who did. You can probably find 15 guys more valuable than Vaughn that year.

Joss, Koufax, and Puckett has nothing to do with anything I said. I agree he should be in. I said explicitly I would vote for him.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

BobC- Okay, I tried it the nice way and you decided to write a chapter of
War and Peace, mixed in with pretzel logic in favor of your guy McGwire, and
others. Bottom line is there are clearly prohibited PEDs that some of these
dudes took in secret, knowing they shouldn't, for competitive advantage that
was mostly to get their 300 foot flyouts, to be 350 foot homers. Period.
That's not "hogwash", it's what they did and they knew it was prohibited.
You can fool yourself into thinking that having 20 whatever eyesight instead
of eye glasses, is somehow a competitive advantage- whatever gets you
through the night.

You don't even understand the argument here, do you? Or any of the points I was trying to make and how they actually may be relevant. Just made a snarky comment about 'War and Peace' so you can apparently use that as a premise to not even bother to respond to my questions and just blow me off. I originally responded to you in defense of the earlier poster you jumped on. Your mind is all set though and you think you're 100% totally right, so its pretty obvious that trying to have an intelligent conversation with you anymore about this would likely just be a waste of my time.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Now that Gil Hodges has been selected for induction, I feel like a toy balloon that has had all the helium let out. It has been a thing for me personally for a long time. Should I now devote all of that interest and energy on Dick Allen? Who else should I root for?

Rick Reuschel. Laugh first, then look up the numbers and get back to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Rick Reuschel. Laugh first, then look up the numbers and get back to me.

Strange case, as memory serves his four Baseball Reference metrics are really mediocre but despite that he had a great WAR and I think may rank in the top 30 in WAR or maybe the combo WAR WAR7 metric. Ill check. Not sure what the disconnect is there. Reminds me a bit of Bobby Grich on the batter side. Hall of Stats, which apparently is now defunct, rated him very highly.

Yeah, check this out.
Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Pitching - 7 (426), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink
Pitching - 111 (231), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor
Pitching - 49 (289), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Pitching - 31 (155), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Starting Pitcher (32nd):
69.5 career WAR | 43.7 7yr-peak WAR | 56.6 JAWS | 56.4 S-JAWS | 4.3 WAR/16

So for the stat guys, how does this make sense? How can his overall ranking be SO much higher than any of his individual rankings which after all look at stats from a number of angles.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If Albert Belle was anyone except Albert Belle he would be a no-brainer. He's being punished for his personality/temper and corked bats. Transport the same stats onto a popular Yankee or Dodger lol and he would have been in from day one.

FYP

Of course I guess some will argue that corked bats shouldn't count against a player.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Strange case, as memory serves his four Baseball Reference metrics are really mediocre but despite that he had a great WAR and I think may rank in the top 30 in WAR or maybe the combo WAR WAR7 metric. Ill check. Not sure what the disconnect is there. Reminds me a bit of Bobby Grich on the batter side. Hall of Stats, which apparently is now defunct, rated him very highly.

Yeah, check this out.
Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Pitching - 7 (426), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink
Pitching - 111 (231), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor
Pitching - 49 (289), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Pitching - 31 (155), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Starting Pitcher (32nd):
69.5 career WAR | 43.7 7yr-peak WAR | 56.6 JAWS | 56.4 S-JAWS | 4.3 WAR/16

So for the stat guys, how does this make sense? How can his overall ranking be SO much higher than any of his individual rankings which after all look at stats from a number of angles.

Because these stats (black ink, grey ink, hall monitor, hall stabdards) look at players who were at top of the league, comparing them effectively to the best of their times or all time. WAR ranks them effectively compared to the absolute worst of the league, not even to league average but over a fantasy “replacement player”. Personally, I think Reuschel’s non WAR stats are a much more accurate picture. I’m not with the new math on Grich either, though he was a little underrated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Because these stats (black ink, grey ink, hall monitor, hall stabdards) look at players who were at top of the league, comparing them effectively to the best of their times or all time. WAR ranks them effectively compared to the absolute worst of the league, not even to league average but over a fantasy “replacement player”. Personally, I think Reuschel’s non WAR stats are a much more accurate picture. I’m not with the new math on Grich either, though he was a little underrated.

Pretty unusual disparity though, wouldn't you say? I don't think I've ever seen a player who was so Jekyll and Hyde on the two sets of metrics.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pretty unusual disparity though, wouldn't you say? I don't think I've ever seen a player who was so Jekyll and Hyde on the two sets of metrics.

Resuschel seems like the kind of guy fit for such a gap. You need someone who was never that big of a producer, but with a lengthy career and a long time of being pretty good.

Sal Bando is another guy like this. 61 WAR, 53 JAWS. Pretty darn bad for such a guy in the 4 hall statistics. Robin Ventura too. The aforementioned Grich as well. Personally, I think the traditional stats paint a more accurate picture of them, once adjusted for context. All fine players, but not what Jaws suggests.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Guess who.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 4 (532), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 38 (821), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 7 (1622), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 30 (342), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Catcher (13th):
46.8 career WAR | 35.0 7yr-peak WAR | 40.9 JAWS | 4.9 WAR/162
Average HOF C (out of 16):
53.8 career WAR | 34.8 7yr-peak WAR | 44.3 JAWS | 4.7 WAR/162

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Guess who.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 4 (532), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 38 (821), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 7 (1622), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 30 (342), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Catcher (13th):
46.8 career WAR | 35.0 7yr-peak WAR | 40.9 JAWS | 4.9 WAR/162
Average HOF C (out of 16):
53.8 career WAR | 34.8 7yr-peak WAR | 44.3 JAWS | 4.7 WAR/162

A catcher WAR loves and traditional stats don’t and scored bad on the Hall stats - Gene Tenace? Is he really that high in the catcher list foe JAWS? Great example

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

A catcher WAR loves and traditional stats don’t and scored bad on the Hall stats - Gene Tenace? Is he really that high in the catcher list foe JAWS? Great example

Yep.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Grich LOLOL.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 8 (356), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 40 (785), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 43 (506), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 32 (286), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Second Base (8th):
71.0 career WAR | 46.4 7yr-peak WAR | 58.7 JAWS | 5.7 WAR/162
Average HOF 2B (out of 20):

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Grich LOLOL.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 8 (356), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 40 (785), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 43 (506), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 32 (286), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Second Base (8th):
71.0 career WAR | 46.4 7yr-peak WAR | 58.7 JAWS | 5.7 WAR/162
Average HOF 2B (out of 20):

Grich is a sabrmetric favorite now, but I just don’t see it. #8 2B, just don’t see it. He was a fine player, but that’s it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Grich is a sabrmetric favorite now, but I just don’t see it. #8 2B, just don’t see it. He was a fine player, but that’s it.

He ranks ahead of Jackie, Frisch, Alomar, Sandberg, and Biggio, among others. OK.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He ranks ahead of Jackie, Frisch, Alomar, Sandberg, and Biggio, among others. OK.

He played far, far less than some of those guys too. Frisch barely climbs above using straight WAR.

WAR putting Joe Gordon higher than Jeff Kent, in far less games, is another 2B surprise, playing with the list.

It’s an absurd claim or I’ve really underrated Tony Phillips. He’s some how top 25.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Grich is a sabrmetric favorite now, but I just don’t see it. #8 2B, just don’t see it. He was a fine player, but that’s it.

Grich scores so high for two reasons: 1) he walked a lot, which WAR vastly overrates; 2) he played in era with not many good 2B

At the end of the day, .266 with 15 homers a year isn't very impressive whatever WAR might say.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

People are forgetting that WAR compares you to your contemporaries at the same position. What it is telling us is who was the best of a given era. It's a bit mediocre for comparing across eras because if your contemporaries are weak you come out looking strong. If your contemporaries are strong you look average. Kinda what makes Tenace and Reuschel so interesting they both played in an era with strong competition at their positions, making their WAR, theoretically, even more impressive. While I think Grich is underrated it is tough to name a second basemen of his era who hit worth a damn. Davey Lopes (who WAR also likes, though not as much) and Frank White (who is almost the exact same player as Mazeroski minus a WS clinching HR) come to mind as his stiffest competition after the best of the era Joe Morgan.

I am not a fan of the grey ink/black ink stuff because it DOESN'T take position into account. For example catchers who lead the league in hitting are a helluva lot rarer than outfielders who do, yet the ink counts don't factor that in.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

He would not have won the MVP in 1954 in a world without Mays. He finished 10th. Several other players had better years. He was never a serious MVP contender.

It is not a cheap shot to say he only ever led the league in games played and strikeouts. It is a statement of actual fact, relevant to the topic. High strikeout rates today have nothing to do whatsoever with Hodges performance in his time and place.

As to his post season record, it looks good when his poor performances are ignored. How about 1952 when he went 0 for 26? How about 1949? He was a .267 hitter in the post season. About the same as his regular season. His OPS percentages are lower in the post season. Which is to be expected, players do worse playing against the best teams, that’s normal. But this was an extremely misleading argument to cut out his poor series to make him look World Series great.

I said I’d vote for him on a combination of play and managing (but I’d vote for a lot of other guys on this logic as well, if the halls rules were up to me), but if a players argument relies on selective memory and cutting out poor performances, anyone one likes is a hall of famer.

EDIT: By the way I edited this post as you will see in the comment immediately following this one. The original post was much too incisive and unfair to you, and I apologize. The comments I make here are how I should have phrased things. All the best - Gannon

Just getting back to you here quickly. As far as the 1954 voting for NL MVP, my point was that his numbers were MVP-worthy. I looked up the voting and Kluszewski was the only player to hit more home runs than him, and have more RBI's. Johnny Antonelli, the pitcher came in 3rd in the balloting. All of these players had great years in their own way. To say that Hodges wasn't a serious MVP candidate wasn't really his fault. There is some subjectivity involved here.

Regarding Hodges' WS play, anyone can have a bad series, during the season or in the post season, against strong teams or weak teams. Sure, Hodges had a .267 average if you take in all of his games. Mantle's WS average was .257. Maybe Mantle with his .298 lifetime average, and having a number of seasons with more than 99 strikeouts shouldn't be in the HOF, smh. The point is Hodges had some great World Series hitting .364, .292, .302, and .391 in 1953, 1955, 1956, and 1959 respectively. Yep, 1952 was a disaster. But Hodges didn't let that affect him going forward - which is the mark of a pro and a champion. And he contributed significantly to the Dodgers becoming champions in '55.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Just getting back to you here quickly. You can spin this anyway you want. As far as the 1954 voting for NL MVP, my point was that his numbers were MVP-worthy. I looked up the voting and Kluszewski was the only player to hit more home runs than him, and have more RBI's. Johnny Antonelli, the pitcher came in 3rd in the balloting. All of these players had great years in their own way. To say that Hodges wasn't a serious MVP candidate is a smear, and it's a remark which is just as subjective as the voting that goes into selecting the MVP.

It's a cheap shot again, when you insinuate that Hodges in part, did poorly in WS play, because he was playing against "the best". Anyone can have a bad series, during the season or in the post season, against strong teams or weak teams. Sure, Hodges had a .267 average if you take in all of his games. Mantle's WS average was .257. Maybe Mantle with his .298 lifetime average, and having a number of seasons with more than 99 strikeouts shouldn't be in the HOF smh. The point is Hodges had some great World Series hitting .364, .292, .302, and .391 in 1953, 1955, 1956, and 1959 respectively. Yep, 1952 was a disaster. But Hodges didn't let that affect him going forward - which is the mark of a pro and a champion. And he contributed significantly to the Dodgers becoming champions in '55.

If you want to spin statistics negatively, that's your prerogative.

That 52 series for Hodges is interesting to me because it took all of a minute after watching series highlights to realize that he was pull off the ball (stepping in the bucket) on every swing. You would think that an experienced coaching staff would have seen that and said something (even without the help of video). Anyway, glad he's in the Hall and I'm assuming that he's the last of those great Brooklyn Dodgers to get in (anyone want to push for Carl Furillo?). LOL

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

EDIT: By the way I edited this post as you will see in the comment immediately following this one. The original post was much too incisive and unfair to you, and I apologize. The comments I make here are how I should have phrased things. All the best - Gannon

Just getting back to you here quickly. As far as the 1954 voting for NL MVP, my point was that his numbers were MVP-worthy. I looked up the voting and Kluszewski was the only player to hit more home runs than him, and have more RBI's. Johnny Antonelli, the pitcher came in 3rd in the balloting. All of these players had great years in their own way. To say that Hodges wasn't a serious MVP candidate wasn't really his fault. There is some subjectivity involved here.

Regarding Hodges' WS play, anyone can have a bad series, during the season or in the post season, against strong teams or weak teams. Sure, Hodges had a .267 average if you take in all of his games. Mantle's WS average was .257. Maybe Mantle with his .298 lifetime average, and having a number of seasons with more than 99 strikeouts shouldn't be in the HOF, smh. The point is Hodges had some great World Series hitting .364, .292, .302, and .391 in 1953, 1955, 1956, and 1959 respectively. Yep, 1952 was a disaster. But Hodges didn't let that affect him going forward - which is the mark of a pro and a champion. And he contributed significantly to the Dodgers becoming champions in '55.

No need to apologize, sir.

I’m 1954, Hodges was 3rd in MVP votes among only Brooklyn Dodgers. Snider was clearly better. WAR puts Hodges even with Reese, though they are very different type seasons and take lots of subjective views to compare value. WAR puts Hodges 10th in the league, same as his MVP finish. Kluszewski was clearly better. He wasn’t a serious MVP candidate, he had an excellent season. He had no first place votes. Modern metrics paint the same story as his traditional stats. It is an excellent season, the kind of season a hall of famer puts up. But he was not a serious MVP candidate.

My point about the WS is not that Hodges performance was poor, or that it should keep him from the hall. It’s that his performance is misleading when his poor series are cut off, like any dataset showing only a players best instead of the overall. He performed overall about the same or a little worse than he did in the regular season. This is true for most players, even Mickey Mantle doesn’t hit as good against the best team as he will against the whole league. Mickey Mantles hall of fame credentials are not built on his post season performance. Mantle leading the league in strikeouts does hurt him, but he led the league in lots of good things lots of times whereas Hodges never once did. Hodges series play is not a detriment, also not much of a credit.

I would not vote for Hodges as a player. I would not vote for Hodges as a manager. I would vote for Hodges on a combination of both; if it was my hall of fame I’d select him as a lower tier nominee. I’d vote for other players on this premise too. The Hall isn’t supposed to combine resumes, but the Veterans Committees probably do. I don’t think Schoendienst, for example, got in solely as a player without any thoughts about his second life in baseball.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

No need to apologize, sir.

I’m 1954, Hodges was 3rd in MVP votes among only Brooklyn Dodgers. Snider was clearly better. WAR puts Hodges even with Reese, though they are very different type seasons and take lots of subjective views to compare value. WAR puts Hodges 10th in the league, same as his MVP finish. Kluszewski was clearly better. He wasn’t a serious MVP candidate, he had an excellent season. He had no first place votes. Modern metrics paint the same story as his traditional stats. It is an excellent season, the kind of season a hall of famer puts up. But he was not a serious MVP candidate.

My point about the WS is not that Hodges performance was poor, or that it should keep him from the hall. It’s that his performance is misleading when his poor series are cut off, like any dataset showing only a players best instead of the overall. He performed overall about the same or a little worse than he did in the regular season. This is true for most players, even Mickey Mantle doesn’t hit as good against the best team as he will against the whole league. Mickey Mantles hall of fame credentials are not built on his post season performance. Mantle leading the league in strikeouts does hurt him, but he led the league in lots of good things lots of times whereas Hodges never once did. Hodges series play is not a detriment, also not much of a credit.

I would not vote for Hodges as a player. I would not vote for Hodges as a manager. I would vote for Hodges on a combination of both; if it was my hall of fame I’d select him as a lower tier nominee. I’d vote for other players on this premise too. The Hall isn’t supposed to combine resumes, but the Veterans Committees probably do. I don’t think Schoendienst, for example, got in solely as a player without any thoughts about his second life in baseball.

Well hey, thanks. That's very nice of you to say.

Yeah, regarding the 1954 season, I was saying it was an excellent season, and as you say, the kind of season a Hall-of-famer has. I didn't exhaustively check out the other players or his stats vis-a-vis the other Dodgers. I was just saying that it could be an MVP year in general.

Regarding his World Series play, obviously his 1952 series was not good But after that, he consistently did well in the World Series. I think one can consider it from both points of view. I mean, even if one doesn't think Hodges is a Hall-of-famer, Hodges was a better player than how he played in the '52 series. 1952 is really a bit of a fluke. Yes, it happened, and brings his overall WS stats down. But he performed a lot better over a longer period of time following.

I was thinking that the Veterans Committee would take into account his playing and his managing career. But as you point out, I guess that they are not supposed to. I guess the Golden Era Committee wasn't supposed to either. At any rate, I obviously give Hodges' playing career more weight than you do. But in another way, we're not disagreeing, because I also think of Hodges' career as including his 1969 championship with the Mets. To me, it's an important part of his career. It definitely is a piece of the puzzle that makes Gil Hodges a Hall of Fame figure.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by mr2686

That 52 series for Hodges is interesting to me because it took all of a minute after watching series highlights to realize that he was pull off the ball (stepping in the bucket) on every swing. You would think that an experienced coaching staff would have seen that and said something (even without the help of video). Anyway, glad he's in the Hall and I'm assuming that he's the last of those great Brooklyn Dodgers to get in (anyone want to push for Carl Furillo?). LOL

Not actually advocating for him but Newcombe has a ROY, CY and MVP. Gave two years service in his prime to his country. Was the 2nd or 3rd best hitting pitcher of all time and played two years in Japan with his pal Larry Doby AS AN OUTFIELDER where he outhit Doby. Just a super cool guy that seems to get lost some times.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Not actually advocating for him but Newcombe has a ROY, CY and MVP. Gave two years service in his prime to his country. Was the 2nd or 3rd best hitting pitcher of all time and played two years in Japan with his pal Larry Doby AS AN OUTFIELDER where he outhit Doby. Just a super cool guy that seems to get lost some times.

He was a great guy and I love him, but...

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jingram058

He was a great guy and I love him, but...

Pretty much what I said. I just gave specifics. Left out his two years in the Negro Leagues though.

Interestingly he's kind of the opposite of Reuschel. Has lots of black and grey ink but comes up short in the WAR metrics.

[triwak]

Because threads need cards. Just picked this one up.