SI article about Gil Hodges & the H.O.F.

Valen, sir, you flatter me. but I have believed Gil should be in for a long time and still do. and will until he gets in.

labratory, sir, forgive me, but I think you need to read Mr, James no-longer-needed- argument for Santo in the HOF, in Historical Baseball Abstract 2nd edition, he said something to the effect that Santo rose above the true standard of the HOF. you could make the case that Willie was the greatest player ever... so not being as good as him can't possibly be an a priori disqualifier. Ernie Banks wasn't as good as Willie either, and you can save your breath and a lot of time by not telling me Banks doesn't belong, because he does.


Duke Snider was probably not as good as Willie either, does that disqualify him? Me, I figure DiMaggio and Mantle were on the same lap and not many more, maybe Spoke if he had played in a live-er-ball era.



you might also consider that Averill hit .318 and over 200 taters after making it to the show for the first time at age TWENTY-SEVEN (remember this was the age of the reserve clause and strong PCL and other minor leaque teams, I presume Averill is in because guys who saw him plat voted him in...


compare his age 27-39 stats to anyone you like...

forgot to add... according to BBRef, there have been over 18,000 major leaguers, 318 is less than 2%


that hardly seems excessive.

I can respect any argument which is based on player statistics, and admit that the Willie Mays standard may be too high. However, I'm always suspicious of guys like Averill and Ashburn that were added 30+ years after retirement by a veterans committee of some sort. (obviously not counting the negro league players or pre-live ball players here)
I think the baseball writers took three ballots before they elected DiMaggio, so standards were much higher at one point.

Actually, the non-players (umpires, managers and executives) are the ones who really burn me. You can't convince me that it is a special talent worthy of recognition. Maybe that's because most of the executives I've met are exceptional only in ego.

forgot to add... according to BBRef, there have been over 18,000 major leaguers, 318 is less than 2%

Never thought about it from this perspective. Very valid point.

However, I'm always suspicious of guys like Averill and Ashburn that were added 30+ years after retirement by a veterans committee of some sort.

Never saw either play and have not put any thought in to their numbers. But speaking strictly regarding veterans committee there was a time they were needed. A lot of old players probably got overlooked at one time because in the early days of the HOF there was a lot of catching up to do. Imagine how tough it would have been to fill out your ballot when you had all of baseball history to choose from. But I think the day of the need for such a committee has passed. It should be dissolved. But I would not consider removing anyone who is already there. Once you open that can of worms there will be no way to decide where to stop.

I agree that you can't kick anyone out of the HOF once they get in. Even OJ Simpson's bust continues to grace Canton. However, it would lead to a very interesting debate if put to a vote.

By the way, most of the 18,000 had just a short stay in the majors. Only about 700 major leaguers have 5000 AB (approximately ten reasonably full seasons which is the minimum for consideration).

After joining New York in 1968, Hodges inherited Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan, Jerry Koosman and Tug McGraw, all of whom were between 21 and 25 years old. Those four pitchers threw a combined 85 seasons in the major leagues.

This may have been the worst argument of all in that article.

What does who you inherited have to do with whether you belong in the HOF as a manager?
Of those 85 seasons how many years was Hodges their manager?
Nolan Ryan was a freak of nature who did not really break out and post 30+ starts until after he left the Mets and left Hodges the manager behind.

I might feel differently if the author cited quotes by those 4 outstanding pitchers attributing their later success to Hodges mentorship. But otherwise this seems more like being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. True, he was the manager of the 69 miracle mets but he followed that with two 83-79 records.

Now I am not saying here Hodges should not be in the HOF. To me that is a different question. I am saying if you are building a case for him to be in HOF you should be able to offer up more legitimate reasons. When authors start citing bogus arguments to support their statements I tend to discount what they are proposing.

If Gil Hodges gets into the Hall of Fame then we might as well add Don Mattingly, Dolph Camilli, Norm Cash, Fred McGriff, Will Clark, Jack Fournier and John Olerud. Then we can have the talk of letting guys just below them like Boog Powell and Ted Kluzewski in.

I also don't buy the we should let him in because Tony Perez is in. Jesse Haines got into the Hall of Fame because his buddies liked him. So lets add the 100+ pitchers that were better then him.

Cicotte has no right to ever be in the Hall of Fame. I don't care how good his numbers were. If he is let in the Hall of Fame then gambling on baseball should be allowed. Who would want that? Watching a game and wondering if that error was intentional or not.

I am a Tigers fan and if Verlander intentionally threw a World Series then I would hope he never plays again and never gets in the Hall. It's just like the young kids today. They think World War 2 was no big deal because it didn't happen in their lifetime.

My problem with Hodges for the HOF is that he didn't do anything quite well enough to put him over the top. Playing a power position, Hodges hit 370 HR, drove in 1274 RBI, scored 1105 runs, and batted .279. Those are good numbers, but for a first baseman--even a good fielding first basement--they aren't the sort of numbers that vault you into the HOF.

Part of Hodges problem is a lack of longevity. He was done as a player after the age of 35, though he hung on marginally for a 4 more seasons. At the same time, in his prime, he was very good but never really awesome. So he had neither longevity nor dominance.

Also, look at Hodges's WAR, which is 44.9. That's not extremely high. There are guys in the Hall with similar WAR's, but they're often marginal HOFs like Travis Jackson and Chuck Klein. Gary Sheffield has a WAR of 60.2, Willie Davis is 60.5, Bobby Damon is 56.0, and Jimmy Wynn is 55.6. None of these guys are going to make the HOF. Why is it an injustice that Hodges is not in the HOF if these other guys won't ever be seriously considered?

I think that there's one big reason why Perez is in the HOF and Hodges is not. Perez drove in 1652 runs, whereas Hodges drove in 1274. That's a HUGE difference. Perez ranks #28 all time in RBI while Hodges ranks #125.

In a power position like 1b, the HOF voters look very closely at RBI. Among players from the pre-steriod era, it is very hard for the BBWAA to leave out a player with 1652 RBI. But it's not that crazy or that wrong to leave out a 1B with 1274 RBI. Graig Nettles has more RBI than Hodges, as do Ruben Sierra, Al Oliver, Gary Gaetti, Darrell Evans, Chili Davis, Dwight Evans, Andreas Gallarraga, Joe Carter, Rusty Staub, and Jeff Kent, among many others. Kent had 1518 RBI, played 2B, and got 15% of the vote on his first try at the Hall in 2014. Kent is almost certainly not going to make it into the HOF. Why should a 1B with 244 fewer RBI get in there instead?

Face it, when it comes to Gil Hodges' HOF chances, that train left the station a long time ago. If he weren't one of the Boys of Summer, nobody would even be talking about him.

Two baseball writers Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein in their book" Baseball Dynasties" devote 4 pages to a discussion
of this issue starting on page 211. They do not believe Hodges qualifies as a player but note that Veterans Committee rule
6(c) might allow him in for his overall contributions to the game "however, the specific category in which such individuals
fall for the purposes of election shall be determined by the role in which they were most prominent". They comment"
when you start putting guys for their dual contributions but count them as players, you lower the standards for players who
are still out."