Gil Hodges???

daltexdaltex Posts: 438 ✭✭✭

A recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal cites approvingly Art Shamsky's new book suggesting that Gil Hodges should be in the HOF just because of what he did with the 1969 Mets, which is just stupid because one season, no matter how great, isn't remotely enough to put someone in the HOF.

The writer went on to suggest that Hodges further deserved to be there because he was the dominant first baseman of his era. I'm not really up on '50s first basemen, so is this even close to true?

«13

Comments

  • TabeTabe Posts: 3,479 ✭✭✭

    Yeah, that's probably true. The 50s, especially the early 50s, are remarkable for how awful the first basemen are. One year, Pittsburgh's starting 1B was Tony Bartirome. In his only year in the majors, Bartirome managed to hit all of .220 with NO homers and just 16 RBI while playing 124 games, almost all of them at 1B.

    The rest of the NL was fairly similar most years except for Ted Kluszewski. For a four year run, Ted was the best but he fell off quick.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @daltex said:
    A recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal cites approvingly Art Shamsky's new book suggesting that Gil Hodges should be in the HOF just because of what he did with the 1969 Mets, which is just stupid because one season, no matter how great, isn't remotely enough to put someone in the HOF.

    The writer went on to suggest that Hodges further deserved to be there because he was the dominant first baseman of his era. I'm not really up on '50s first basemen, so is this even close to true?

    Hodges was a superb hitting and fielding Firstbaseman on a team with a lot of great hitters.

    From Wikipedia;

    "Hodges is generally considered to be the best defensive first baseman of the 1950s. He was an All-Star for eight seasons and a Gold Glove Award winner for three consecutive seasons. Hodges was the National League (NL) leader in double plays four times and in putouts, assists and fielding percentage three times each. He ranked second in NL history with 1,281 assists and 1,614 double plays when his career ended, and was among the league's career leaders in games (6th, 1,908) and total chances (10th, 16,751) at first base."

    Gold Glove awards weren't given out until the 1957 season or Hodges would certainly have several more, I would assume.

    Slugged over .500 for 9 out of 10 years, played in 141+ games for 10 straight years, 27+ HR for 8 straight years, 100+ RBI for 7 straight years.

    He followed that with a nice managerial career.

    Despite having a shorter amount of playing time and a lower BA, he certainly should be in the HOF in my opinion.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • stevekstevek Posts: 23,104 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 27, 2019 9:21PM

    I hate the old argument of the "tallest midget in the circus" should be in the Hall of Fame, if it's applicable in this case, which it appears to be.

    Just because someone was the best at their position in their particular era, if the other players at that position were basically marginal, and the best player was just a bit better than those, that does not mean he should be in the Hall.

    Even if the best player was "dominant" over other players in that position from that era, if his credentials are not Hall of Fame type credentials, then he should not get in.

  • ernie11ernie11 Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭

    @stevek said:
    I hate the old argument of the "tallest midget in the circus" should be in the Hall of Fame, if it's applicable in this case, which it appears to be.

    Just because someone was the best at their position in their particular era, if the other players at that position were basically marginal, and the best player was just a bit better than those, that does not mean he should be in the Hall.

    Even if the best player was "dominant" over other players in that position from that era, if his credentials are not Hall of Fame type credentials, then he should not get in.

    Is this the Jack Morris argument? :D

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 19,979 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Hodges was an iconic member of the famed 1950’s Brooklyn Dodgers, had he played for another team he would not have as much notoriety in my opinion. A solid first baseman regardless

  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Forgive me, but I saw this thread and had to come rushing over to it. If Gil Hodges should be in the Hall of Fame, then so should Dave Kingman. Everybody have a great day!

  • MLBdaysMLBdays Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 28, 2019 3:47AM

    Gil Hodges is often mentioned with players not in the HOF that could be based on his performance with an iconic team.... look at his stats.... and if you couple his managerial prowess~ according to Art Shamsky~ then that could factor into his induction ...similar to a Joe Torre though Torre's managerial resume is through the roof vs. Hodges...... Hodges was a big, big name and a classy fella by most accounts. His 7 straight 100 RBI seasons are no joke ..I think Mantle had a total of 4~ 100 RBI seasons. Stat wise I think Hodges certainly falls a bit short... But I would say he certainly dominated for a decade in the sport... as big a star as there was in the 50's for sure.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hodgegi01.shtml

  • stevekstevek Posts: 23,104 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think most would agree that Gil Hodges as a player is not a Hall of Famer.

    As far as Shamsky's argument that perhaps Hodges should be nudged into the Hall of Fame because of how he managed the Mets in their amazing 1969 season. The way I recollect that season is that Hodges basically filled out the lineup card and then stayed out of the way. It was the pitchers that were the backbone of that team, particularly Seaver and Koosman who had terrific seasons along with others such as reliever Tug McGraw. With catcher Jerry Grote, arguably one of the finest defensive catchers of all time, smartly knowing the tendencies of the opposing batters and wisely calling for the right pitches.

    Hodges the way I remember it, was basically along for the ride, not doing anything special as far as Hall of Fame type managerial genius. Anyone is free to correct me if I'm remembering it wrong.

  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sorry Dave, I tried! They still ain't havin' it!

  • daltexdaltex Posts: 438 ✭✭✭

    I guess I'm confused by the "great manager" argument. 95th most games managed with an overall losing record. Yes, 1969 was amazing, but his best year(s) other than that was 83-79.

    It is also a big leap from "Dominant first baseman of his era" to "as big a star as there was in the 50's". I'm willing to accept that the '50s was an historically weak era for NL first basemen, or even first basemen overall. Not willing to say Hodges was a bigger star than, say, Mays in the '50s.

    FWIW, that link suggests that Hodges had a negative dWAR. Not what I'd expect from a superior defensive first baseman. Also, a 120 OPS+ is extremely pedestrian for a first baseman.

    Top 45 first baseman I'll grant you, but surely there is no one who thinks that the top 45 at every position should be HOFers.

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I say put him in! :)


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • TabeTabe Posts: 3,479 ✭✭✭

    Yeah, the "great manager" thing makes no sense. Even if we exclude his years in Washington and just look at New York:

    4 seasons. 1 great, 2 mediocre, 1 bad.

    That's...not great.

  • TabeTabe Posts: 3,479 ✭✭✭

    In addition to that, Hodges' run as a top player was pretty short - 1949-57. He had decent years on either side of that but the move to LA hurt him and he was washed up at 36.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 23,104 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 28,037 ✭✭✭✭✭

    He record as a player might be good enough, but definitely not as a manger. If one season rates the HOF, then Roger Maris should get in. He actually had a couple of great seasons (MVP in 1960, 61 homers in ‘61) and a couple of good seasons, but that’s not good enough for the hall.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BillJones said:
    He record as a player might be good enough, but definitely not as a manger. If one season rates the HOF, then Roger Maris should get in. He actually had a couple of great seasons (MVP in 1960, 61 homers in ‘61) and a couple of good seasons, but that’s not good enough for the hall.

    How about looking at his total contributions to the game?

    Maris was a great player, he only played 12 years and only 6 of them in which he appeared in 125 games or more. Not a very good comparison if you look at that.

    @Tabe said:
    In addition to that, Hodges' run as a top player was pretty short - 1949-57. He had decent years on either side of that but the move to LA hurt him and he was washed up at 36.

    Yes, his career was on the short side WWll probably knocked a couple of years off his time in the Majors.

    10 out of 11 years with an OPS of .813 or above with 8 of those years above .500 SLG.

    He may not be a "Top Tier" HOFer, but that's impressive.......and incredibly consistent.

    @daltex said:
    I guess I'm confused by the "great manager" argument. 95th most games managed with an overall losing record. Yes, 1969 was amazing, but his best year(s) other than that was 83-79.

    It is also a big leap from "Dominant first baseman of his era" to "as big a star as there was in the 50's". I'm willing to accept that the '50s was an historically weak era for NL first basemen, or even first basemen overall. Not willing to say Hodges was a bigger star than, say, Mays in the '50s.

    FWIW, that link suggests that Hodges had a negative dWAR. Not what I'd expect from a superior defensive first baseman. Also, a 120 OPS+ is extremely pedestrian for a first baseman.

    Top 45 first baseman I'll grant you, but surely there is no one who thinks that the top 45 at every position should be HOFers.

    I agree that the "Great Manager" argument shouldn't be a big factor, but should be taken into account in addition to his playing career.

    No, he was not Willie Mays, who might be the greatest player of all-time. Another unfair comparison.

    dWar. Hodges was regarded as the finest fielder at his position by the players, that means more to me than a defensive stat that even the die hard "stat guys" shy away from as being a poor measuring tool.

    He was in the top 35 as a hitter and top 5 (?) as a fielder. He should get some credit for being able to do both things at a high level.

    He did have a career that was on the short side. Don't forget he lost a couple of years in the Marines.

    Gil was not Lou Gehrig or Jimmy Foxx, but he's a great example of what a HOF ballplayer should be imo.

    My final thoughts are that the new breed of sabermatricians are going to say no, and the guys that can look at things other than OPS+ will say yes.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    Do you know that 3 of the 5 required areas for qualification have to do with character and sportsmanship?

    That's rarely brought up (or agreed with), the HOF wasn't started just for the statistical achievers.

    And yes, there are a few dirtbags that got in. A lot of the information we have now was covered up way back then.

    I hope I can make it to Cooperstown someday!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • daltexdaltex Posts: 438 ✭✭✭

    MLBdays said he basically dominated the game in the '50s and was as big a star there was. That's a definite comparison to Mays.

    Hodges played 1 game in Brooklyn before he went into the service and when he came out (at 22) he spent the whole year at Newport News. It is a reach to say he lost significant time due to the war, and, IMO, unlikely he lost any. 18 seasons is not a short career.

    Keith Hernandez was better both offensively and defensively. Not making an argument for him to be in, but surely should be in before Hodges.

    FWIW, Candy Cummings makes Mazeroski look like a no-doubt first ballot HOFer, and he went in in 1939. Boggles the mind.

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 29, 2019 6:12AM

    @daltex said:
    MLBdays said he basically dominated the game in the '50s and was as big a star there was. That's a definite comparison to Mays.

    Hodges played 1 game in Brooklyn before he went into the service and when he came out (at 22) he spent the whole year at Newport News. It is a reach to say he lost significant time due to the war, and, IMO, unlikely he lost any. 18 seasons is not a short career.

    Keith Hernandez was better both offensively and defensively. Not making an argument for him to be in, but surely should be in before Hodges.

    FWIW, Candy Cummings makes Mazeroski look like a no-doubt first ballot HOFer, and he went in in 1939. Boggles the mind.

    Don't care what MLBdays says about this, it's a foolish statement and a horrible reach to just toss in Mays based on a ridiculous, and just plain wrong claim.

    Saw a internet rating claiming Koufax was the greatest pitcher in history of MLB. IDIOTIC!

    Secondly, there's really no way of arguing that his time in the military didn't cost him up to three years in MLB. He could have played 1943 in minors for a full year and been ready, then gotten the opportunity of FOUR more full seasons in the Majors.

    More likely, he would have needed a couple of years in the minors and been ready to play part time as a rookie in 1945 and a full time guy in '46 and '47, adding two full prime years to his career. Not a reach at all to project this is quite likely to have happened if not for WWll.

    First game in Majors 1943, exceeded rookie status in 1948. Military service had NO effect? I guess there is no way to really know, but he was out of baseball for 2 years and to say it didn't effect his career seems very doubtful.

    Also didn't say SHORT career. To say he played 18 seasons is deceiving. 1943 he played 1 game, 1947 he played 28 games and 62-63 he played in a total of 65 games. I look more to lifetime PA as an indicator of career length and 8100 is not in the top tier for longevity, while it is plenty long enough for HOF inclusion. Hence, shorter.

    Now you bring in Hernandez. First off, I think Hernandez belongs in the HOF. Hodges was better as a power hitter and both were fantastic fielders. Was Hernandez better overall? Too close to argue about.

    Hodges also contributed as a manager and that adds to his resume. I also don't agree with the earlier (foolish) statement that Hodges deserves to be in the HOF because of 1969 alone, another ridiculous claim (not yours).

    Candy Cummings? REALLY? Not going to respond to that.

    I am glad you brought up Mazeroski though. Perfect example of my earlier point that a weak hitter who is a great fielder gets a lot of credit for being so good in the field. Maz and Hodges played in about the same amount of games, were awesome fielders (more value as a great fielder at third) but Hodges a MUCH better hitter. Both positions are regarded as spots where the player should have some power. Hodges had a .487 SLG to Maz's .367 and a higher BA as well. Too bad Gil didn't get to start his career at the age of 19 like Maz! Bill was finished at the age of 32.

    The "Maz guys" argued that he was the greatest fielding 3rd baseman for a decade, well Gil was the greatest fielding 1st baseman for a decade. Oh, sorry every other guy who played 1st during the 1950's was horrible, so anyone halfway decent could have done it.

    Good argument for Hodges!

    Of all the guys mentioned in your post, Hodges is the most deserving, if you are willing to look at ALL the factors and not just OPS+.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!

    Sorry, but even Pete knows he doesn't belong in the HOF.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!

    Sorry, but even Pete knows he doesn't belong in the HOF.

    Totally disagree! The "All Time Hits Leader" has to be in! It would be like Hank Aaron not being in!


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭✭

    The argument for Mazeroski is that he was the GOAT at second base, not merely that he was great. While Hodges was a very good first baseman, anyone who argues that he was the GOAT is just embarrassing themselves.

    Hodges drove in 100 runs a bunch of times because there were hundreds of people on base for him to drive in. Put a much better hitter, say Boog Powell, in that spot in the Dodgers order and he'd drive in 130 every year.

    We all remember Cecil Cooper. He was a fine hitter and a pretty good first baseman. He was also, I think we all agree, not a HOFer; not even close. Now compare Gil Hodges to Cecil Cooper. I think Cooper was a very little bit better, but I can see how someone might reach the other conclusion, that Hodges was a very little bit better. What I can't see is how anyone could conclude that Hodges was so much better than Cooper - who received no votes in his only appearance on a HOF ballot - that he's a HOFer.

    With respect to Hodges qualifying as a combination player/manager, my understanding is that this isn't how it works; you qualify as one or the other, but not as the sum of both. Joe Torre, who was so much better a player than Hodges I won't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting there's a debate on that point, didn't make the HOF as a player. When he was up for a vote again as a manager, it was only his managerial record that was considered. I happen to disagree with this - I think combinations ought to be considered - but I don't think Hodges has that path to the HOF available to him.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • BrickBrick Posts: 3,913 ✭✭✭✭

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!

    Sorry, but even Pete knows he doesn't belong in the HOF.

    Totally disagree! The "All Time Hits Leader" has to be in! It would be like Hank Aaron not being in!

    More like "Shoeless" Joe Jackson not being in.

    Collecting 1960 Topps Baseball in PSA 8
    http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/

    Ralph

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Brick said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!

    Sorry, but even Pete knows he doesn't belong in the HOF.

    Totally disagree! The "All Time Hits Leader" has to be in! It would be like Hank Aaron not being in!

    More like "Shoeless" Joe Jackson not being in.

    No....Joe was in on throwing WS games. Pete NEVER EVER threw games.


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:
    The argument for Mazeroski is that he was the GOAT at second base, not merely that he was great. While Hodges was a very good first baseman, anyone who argues that he was the GOAT is just embarrassing themselves.

    Neither player was a GOAT at their positions. Must be at least 6 guys clearly better than Maz at second. Who on earth would claim he was the GOAT? While he played, maybe, but only as a fielder, not as a hitter.

    Hodges drove in 100 runs a bunch of times because there were hundreds of people on base for him to drive in. Put a much better hitter, say Boog Powell, in that spot in the Dodgers order and he'd drive in 130 every year.

    Maybe, but we don't, and can't know that. What we know is that Hodges did it. Nobody drives in 100 runs seven years in a row unless there's a bunch of guys on base.

    How many guys on ANY team ever did that while averaging 32 HR per year? All are HOFers, will be in, or cheaters. Maybe not Teixeira.

    I remember "Booger" well, but with a lower BA, SLG and OPS than Gil, I don't see him as a better hitter. Boog played on some fine teams as well. Looking at PA, Powell seemed to have a hard time getting on the field. He was very very good 1966-1970, with '68 being a bit of a down year. From 1949-1957 Hodges basically never missed a game except for 1953. and never really had a bad year during that time. I guess he never sat out against a tough pitcher. ;-)

    I am assuming Duke Snyder was hitting fourth a lot, so if Hodges is not hitting "clean-up" and still driving in all those runs, that's very good. My memories of Powell were him being a #4 hitter pretty much all the time.

    We all remember Cecil Cooper. He was a fine hitter and a pretty good first baseman. He was also, I think we all agree, not a HOFer; not even close. Now compare Gil Hodges to Cecil Cooper. I think Cooper was a very little bit better, but I can see how someone might reach the other conclusion, that Hodges was a very little bit better. What I can't see is how anyone could conclude that Hodges was so much better than Cooper - who received no votes in his only appearance on a HOF ballot - that he's a HOFer.

    Cooper was a fine player. I like Hodges better. Gil averaged 32 HR a year for an eight year period, Cooper hit 32 HR in a year one time. Cooper hit for a higher BA. Everything I have ever read says Hodges was a superior fielder, one of the finest of all-time.

    With respect to Hodges qualifying as a combination player/manager, my understanding is that this isn't how it works; you qualify as one or the other, but not as the sum of both. Joe Torre, who was so much better a player than Hodges I won't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting there's a debate on that point, didn't make the HOF as a player. When he was up for a vote again as a manager, it was only his managerial record that was considered. I happen to disagree with this - I think combinations ought to be considered - but I don't think Hodges has that path to the HOF available to him.

    I don't know if there's a rule that says you can't consider someone's playing and managing together. That would be stupid. I would assume a voter takes into consideration whatever he wants to.

    In forming my opinion on Hodges, I took his accomplishments as a player (I think he missed at least 2 years because of the war) and manager, coupled that with his character and feel that he is very deserving of induction. He might not have been as good as Torre, but he was a lot better than Baines.

    Frank Chance? Jake Beckley?? George Kelly? Jim Bottomley? Several 1B guys that don't look as good as Gil.

    I read a quote from Yogi Berra on the subject; "We all figured it was just a matter of time before Hodges got in. Snyder, Jackie Robinson, Campenella all got in first, but Gil kinda got forgotten. He should be in." Or words to that effect.

    Gil's in my HOF. Proud to have him!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @Brick said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!

    Sorry, but even Pete knows he doesn't belong in the HOF.

    Totally disagree! The "All Time Hits Leader" has to be in! It would be like Hank Aaron not being in!

    More like "Shoeless" Joe Jackson not being in.

    No....Joe was in on throwing WS games. Pete NEVER EVER threw games.

    Joe was found innocent in a court of law.

    Pete pleaded guilty to keep the facts out of public.

    Shame on you Pete!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @Brick said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!

    Sorry, but even Pete knows he doesn't belong in the HOF.

    Totally disagree! The "All Time Hits Leader" has to be in! It would be like Hank Aaron not being in!

    More like "Shoeless" Joe Jackson not being in.

    No....Joe was in on throwing WS games. Pete NEVER EVER threw games.

    Joe was found innocent in a court of law.

    Pete pleaded guilty to keep the facts out of public.

    Shame on you Pete!

    I did not know Joe was found innocent. He should be in then if his stats are there.

    On Pete....what he did should not keep him out of the HOF.


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @Brick said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!

    Sorry, but even Pete knows he doesn't belong in the HOF.

    Totally disagree! The "All Time Hits Leader" has to be in! It would be like Hank Aaron not being in!

    More like "Shoeless" Joe Jackson not being in.

    No....Joe was in on throwing WS games. Pete NEVER EVER threw games.

    Joe was found innocent in a court of law.

    Pete pleaded guilty to keep the facts out of public.

    Shame on you Pete!

    I did not know Joe was found innocent. He should be in then if his stats are there.

    On Pete....what he did should not keep him out of the HOF.

    Well, the entire team was found innocent, if I remember correctly, but that was in a Chicago court.

    "Despite acquittals in a public trial in 1921, Judge Landis permanently banned all eight men from professional baseball. The punishment was eventually defined to also include banishment from post-career honors such as consideration for the Baseball Hall of Fame."

    Funny how these two are linked, both involved with gambling, neither will ever get in.

    Pete should have known better. As Gomer Pyle used to say "Shame, shame shame!"

    Jackson was a better player and a "Joe" as well.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @Brick said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!

    Sorry, but even Pete knows he doesn't belong in the HOF.

    Totally disagree! The "All Time Hits Leader" has to be in! It would be like Hank Aaron not being in!

    More like "Shoeless" Joe Jackson not being in.

    No....Joe was in on throwing WS games. Pete NEVER EVER threw games.

    Joe was found innocent in a court of law.

    Pete pleaded guilty to keep the facts out of public.

    Shame on you Pete!

    I did not know Joe was found innocent. He should be in then if his stats are there.

    On Pete....what he did should not keep him out of the HOF.

    Well, the entire team was found innocent, if I remember correctly, but that was in a Chicago court.

    "Despite acquittals in a public trial in 1921, Judge Landis permanently banned all eight men from professional baseball. The punishment was eventually defined to also include banishment from post-career honors such as consideration for the Baseball Hall of Fame."

    Funny how these two are linked, both involved with gambling, neither will ever get in.

    Pete should have known better. As Gomer Pyle used to say "Shame, shame shame!"

    Jackson was a better player and a "Joe" as well.

    There is still a difference......Pete did not throw games! He should be in!! I don't want to argue anymore about. It makes me see RED! We will have to agree to disagree. :)


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 19,281 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Gil Hodges and whether he should be in the HOF has been discussed here and I suggest that you consider searching for those threads.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @Brick said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @DIMEMAN said:

    @stevek said:
    So continues the endless debate of who should be in the Hall of Fame. Should it only be for great players or also for excellent players.

    I say it should only be for great players but the Hall of Fame is not going to listen to anyone with this viewpoint at this point in time. Lots of "excellent" players now in the Hall and sometimes even just very good players.

    I basically gave up on this topic when Bill Mazeroski was allowed in. The classic example of a very good player who we all know got in because of one dramatic at bat. And I realize there were some other dubious choices before him.

    Oh well, the Hall of Fame still a wonderful place to visit, I've been there twice, and I highly recommend it.

    I won't be visiting the Hall until the "All Time Hit Leader" is in......it's not worthy until then!

    Sorry, but even Pete knows he doesn't belong in the HOF.

    Totally disagree! The "All Time Hits Leader" has to be in! It would be like Hank Aaron not being in!

    More like "Shoeless" Joe Jackson not being in.

    No....Joe was in on throwing WS games. Pete NEVER EVER threw games.

    Joe was found innocent in a court of law.

    Pete pleaded guilty to keep the facts out of public.

    Shame on you Pete!

    I did not know Joe was found innocent. He should be in then if his stats are there.

    On Pete....what he did should not keep him out of the HOF.

    Well, the entire team was found innocent, if I remember correctly, but that was in a Chicago court.

    "Despite acquittals in a public trial in 1921, Judge Landis permanently banned all eight men from professional baseball. The punishment was eventually defined to also include banishment from post-career honors such as consideration for the Baseball Hall of Fame."

    Funny how these two are linked, both involved with gambling, neither will ever get in.

    Pete should have known better. As Gomer Pyle used to say "Shame, shame shame!"

    Jackson was a better player and a "Joe" as well.

    There is still a difference......Pete did not throw games! He should be in!! I don't want to argue anymore about. It makes me see RED! We will have to agree to disagree. :)

    I am fine with agreeing to disagree. I never said he threw games. You are correct, that was never proven. He bet on them.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • TabeTabe Posts: 3,479 ✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    I am fine with agreeing to disagree. I never said he threw games. You are correct, that was never proven. He bet on them.

    That's correct, no direct proof that he threw any games. Just proof that he bet on the Reds depending on who was pitching and may or may not have altered lineups and pitching usage based on same. Not quite as bad as directly throwing games via participation on the field but not far off either.

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭✭

    JoeBanzai - you simply can't compare straight up stats of a player in Brooklyn in the 1950's to a player in Baltimore in the 1960's and 1970's and reach any meaningful conclusion. A simple way to compare their circumstances is to look at their "AIR" on bb-ref, in the Advanced Batting section. For Hodges, it's 108 and for Powell it's 91 - 100 means an historically neutral hitting environment. What this tells you is that when Hodges drives in 108 runs, he has had the same impact on his team as when Powell drives in 91 runs. For most players close in time you won't see gaps that large, but the difference between Brooklyn in Hodges time and Baltimore in Powell's time was enormous.

    A very good debate could be had regarding Hodges and Cooper - they were essentially the same player and it's not clear which of them was better. Not so with Hodges and Powell; Powell was clearly better. And "clearly better" doesn't even begin to do justice to the gap between Hodges and the next tier up; Dick Allen, Will Clark and Keith Hernandez were in a different talent universe than Hodges, Powell and Cooper (whose universe also includes Dolf Camilli and Bob Watson). Hodges was a very good baseball player, and there is no shame, nor is any intended, in being compared to Cecil Cooper and Bob Watson, who were also very good baseball players. The point is that what makes Hodges appear better than any of them has nothing to do with Hodges. Hodges played in an extremely hitter-friendly ballpark, and had many, many more runners on base to drive in than the others did.

    And yes, my reference to Mazeroski as the GOAT was strictly with regard to fielding.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 19,979 ✭✭✭✭✭

    LOL we got AIR now? What other abbreviations we got? Or which ones haven’t been invented yet

  • MLBdaysMLBdays Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think whatever AIR Jordan thinks about Gil Hodges should become reality....

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:
    LOL we got AIR now? What other abbreviations we got? Or which ones haven’t been invented yet

    We've had it for some time. It is, directly or indirectly, a component of every stat that is useful for comparing players.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's certainly POSSIBLE Booger would have performed better if we could transport him back in time, and put him in Hodges' place.

    Of course Powell batted left handed and we have all heard that Duke Snyder was SO much better because he was a (the only?) left handed batter in that great lineup. You would then have to re-evaluate (and diminish Powell's numbers accordingly), or he might become Babe Ruth in that lineup...............Maybe.

    So when we do that, you also ASSUME that Powell plays every day (a VERY large assumption) and then you are right about your educated GUESS that he was a better hitter, now Boog Powell becomes a absolute sure fire HOFer. No argument what so ever!

    The problem is we can't do that. That's the flaw (one of many) in those "advanced" numbers, they automatically assume player "A" (Powell) in this case,would do things in the 1950's better than he did in the time he actually played.

    OPS+ here claims Boog's .822OPS is better than Gil's .846 by a whopping 14 points, 134-120, (about a 28 point approximately 20% total adjustment???????) disregarding the fact he was a left handed hitter, (thus neutralizing the park factor/hitting environment).

    Ballparks are, with few exceptions, not symmetrical, "hitting environment" is not equal for left and right handed batters. I seriously doubt that your stat factors that in. If it does, I would be surprised.

    Another OPS+ problem is it rewards a guy (like Boog) for playing less games. Most (I could say everyone) would agree it's harder to maintain a high level of quality play if you never get a day off, whereas players who get more rest, and/or sit against tough pitchers, have it easier.

    Had he played on the same team as Hodges he might not even gotten on the field! Players were expected to play every day back then. Powell would have gotten hurt or had a down year and Gil would have taken over and that would be IT!

    What we can do, is look at everything Hodges was able to actually do, and see that it was very impressive. The ballpark didn't hit a single or a double etc with guys on base to drive them in. Hodges might have hit a few more home runs IF the park was easier for his type of hitter to hit them................Maybe

    I would be interested in seeing a comparison of Gil and Boog's RBI opportunity numbers, but don't know if they are even listed anywhere. Do they even have BA with RISP or men on base for the 1950's?

    You can reasonably assume Hodges would have gotten at least 2 more years of his "lucky" production if not for military service. If you are going to give Powell more credit than he "deserves" let's give Gil those two years. Now he has (maybe) 9-10 years in a row with 30 HR and 100 RBI (basically without missing a game).

    Most consecutive seasons with 30 home runs;

    Player Seasons
    Alex Rodriguez 13
    Barry Bonds 13
    Albert Pujols 12
    Jimmie Foxx 12
    Sammy Sosa 10
    Carlos Delgado 10
    Lou Gehrig 9
    Eddie Mathews 9
    Mike Schmidt 9
    Rafael Palmeiro 9
    Jim Thome 9
    Manny Ramírez 9
    Babe Ruth 8
    Albert Belle 8
    Mike Piazza 8
    Jeff Bagwell 8
    Mark Teixeira 8
    Mickey Mantle 8

    Eight or more consecutive seasons with 100 runs batted in
    Player Years
    Lou Gehrig 13
    Jimmie Foxx 13
    Alex Rodriguez 13
    Al Simmons 11
    Miguel Cabrera 11
    Albert Pujols 10
    Albert Belle 9
    Rafael Palmeiro 9
    Manny Ramírez 9
    Sammy Sosa 9
    Chipper Jones 8
    Babe Ruth 8
    Mel Ott 8
    Willie Mays 8
    Frank Thomas 8
    Mark Teixeira 8

    Players who did BOTH without steroids; (yet another example of how steroids changed the game)
    Jimmy Foxx 12
    Albert Puhols 10
    Lou Gehrig 9
    Babe Ruth 8

    No, Hodges does not quite make this list,he comes 10 HR ( 7 in 1949, 3 in 1955) and 13 RBI short (in 1956). He hit another 27 HR in 1957 as well!

    13 HR short of 9 straight seasons with 30 HR!

    Most consecutive seasons with 20 home runs w/o steroids
    Player Seasons
    Hank Aaron 20
    Babe Ruth 16
    Willie Mays 15
    Eddie Mathews 14
    Mike Schmidt 14
    Chipper Jones 14
    Billy Williams 13
    Willie Stargell 13
    Reggie Jackson 13
    Carlos Delgado 13 (I might have missed a couple guys below 13 seasons)
    Jimmie Foxx 12
    Gil Hodges 11

    Powell and Hodges were both good/great ambassadors to the game, I think. I assume you don't take that much into account, but Hodges' reputation was almost legendary in that respect.

    Gil also was a manager and won a World Series. If we are going to give Powell credit for hitting in a (maybe) tougher era and/or ballpark, I think we can give Hodges some cred for a nice stint as a manager.

    Powell (or any of the other excellent players you have mentioned) was a very good to great hitter. None of the guys you mentioned actually did what Gil did, regardless of where they played and who they played with, and none of them had anywhere near a 8-10 year peak where they could remotely match his numbers.

    Some had some huge years. Powel's 1964 was superb, but he barely had enough PA for it to even be a qualifying year. Then look at 1965! Boog drops off significantly, bounces back in '66 and gets even worse in '67 than '65. That's not greatness.

    Powell had 3 seasons with over 500 AB Hodges had 9, yet Powell gets credit for MORE than he actually did because of the math you are using.

    None of those guys you mention missed any time because of military service.

    Dick Allen, who we agree on, would have been even better if he played in the 1950's for the Dodgers, IF he would have had Gil's ability/desire to stay in the lineup. Allen was a full-time player for about 6 years, putting up awesome numbers. He was amazing when he played, but he didn't play much. Jim Kaat has said Dick was just not always passionate about playing baseball.

    In no way am I elevating Hodges to an upper level HOFer, but I would rank him above at least 25% of the players already in, and several first basemen.

    You say guys like Powell were better hitters, you bring up some nice points. However you ignore some significant accomplishments that Gil had that NONE of them came close to achieving.

    OPS+ misses a lot, and is flawed at what it does look at.

    Are Yogi Berra and me still the only guys who think Gil belongs?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:
    LOL we got AIR now? What other abbreviations we got? Or which ones haven’t been invented yet

    I like BANZAI+ myself. Less numeric, more common sense. ;-)

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    The problem is we can't do that. That's the flaw (one of many) in those "advanced" numbers, they automatically assume player "A" (Powell) in this case,would do things in the 1950's better than he did in the time he actually played.

    I'm sorry you wasted your time with all the rest of your post, but the part above can't pass without comment.

    Given that everyone - Hodges, Snider, lefties, righties, fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks, EVERYONE - had better numbers in Brooklyn in the 1950's than they did anywhere else - the assumption that another player would also have done better there than in his own pitcher-friendly park is, while technically an assumption, an assumption akin to assuming that a coin tossed 20 times will come up heads at least once.

    The "flaw" is in making the absurd assumption that something other than this would have happened. But let's do away with the word "assumption" since it really doesn't apply here. Let's state it more in factual terms and say that the odds are overwhelming that Powell would have driven in more runners than Hodges did had Powell gotten to take Hodges plate appearances. You want to bet me even money that if I toss a coin 20 times that it will come up tails every time? I assume not. The odds that Powell wouldn't drive in more runs than Hodges are similar, but for some reason you desperately want to believe that it's a 50/50 chance, or something similar. It's not. It's just not. Put Hodges in Milwaukee instead of Brooklyn and there is a fair chance you would not have heard of him, and an excellent chance that he, like Cecil Cooper, would have received no votes in his sole appearance on a HOF ballot. And the only "assumption" I am making is that he would have played to the best of his ability in Milwaukee just as he did in Brooklyn. If you want to reach a different conclusion, and I know you really, really do, then it is you who are going to have make multiple unlikely assumptions in order to get there.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 30, 2019 12:02PM

    @dallasactuary said:

    A very good debate could be had regarding Hodges and Cooper - they were essentially the same player and it's not clear which of them was better.

    OK. Let's look;

    Both players had an OPS+ within 1 point. Hodges 120 Cooper 121.

    Both players had a ten year period where they played full-time;

    I am ignoring Hodges' first 4 years; 2 were in Military, also last year when he played in 11 games.

    I am ignoring Cooper's first three years (71-73), he played primarily in the minors. He wasn't a full time player 74-76 appearing in 72% of his team's games.

    For the 10 year period;

    Hodges played in 98% of the games, hit 297 HR, drove in 1042 Runs and had an .867 OPS

    Cooper played in 88% of the games, hit 195 HR, drove in 908 runs and had an .815 OPS

    Both were good fielders. I think Hodges was better. No good way to prove it imo.

    They don't look to be of equal value here.

    Hodges hit another 72 HR in his last 5 years

    Cooper hit another 37 in his three years prior to his 10 year "prime" and none his last year.

    RBI in non prime years were almost equal very slight edge to Gil.

    Hodges played one more year than Cooper.

    Pretty clear to me. OPS+ gets it wrong again.

    edited to add; Cooper another left handed batter.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @JoeBanzai said:
    The problem is we can't do that. That's the flaw (one of many) in those "advanced" numbers, they automatically assume player "A" (Powell) in this case,would do things in the 1950's better than he did in the time he actually played.

    I'm sorry you wasted your time with all the rest of your post, but the part above can't pass without comment.

    Given that everyone - Hodges, Snider, lefties, righties, fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks, EVERYONE - had better numbers in Brooklyn in the 1950's than they did anywhere else - the assumption that another player would also have done better there than in his own pitcher-friendly park is, while technically an assumption, an assumption akin to assuming that a coin tossed 20 times will come up heads at least once.

    The "flaw" is in making the absurd assumption that something other than this would have happened. But let's do away with the word "assumption" since it really doesn't apply here. Let's state it more in factual terms and say that the odds are overwhelming that Powell would have driven in more runners than Hodges did had Powell gotten to take Hodges plate appearances. You want to bet me even money that if I toss a coin 20 times that it will come up tails every time? I assume not. The odds that Powell wouldn't drive in more runs than Hodges are similar, but for some reason you desperately want to believe that it's a 50/50 chance, or something similar. It's not. It's just not. Put Hodges in Milwaukee instead of Brooklyn and there is a fair chance you would not have heard of him, and an excellent chance that he, like Cecil Cooper, would have received no votes in his sole appearance on a HOF ballot. And the only "assumption" I am making is that he would have played to the best of his ability in Milwaukee just as he did in Brooklyn. If you want to reach a different conclusion, and I know you really, really do, then it is you who are going to have make multiple unlikely assumptions in order to get there.

    It's a great theory, but as I said Powell wouldn't have beaten Hodges out for the 1st base position, so actually he would have beed traded or released or stuck in the minors.

    Since time travel is impossible, we'll never know.

    I do LOVE IT when you ignore the fact that Powell hit lefty and Hodges righty, giving Boog a big "AIR" advantage because of the short right field fences at virtually EVERY ballpark in the history of the game.

    Also they play at least half their games on the road don't they?

    I know you'll never concede it, but it's a fact not a "guess" which is all you can do when trying to figure out what a guy would do in someone else's era OR ballpark.

    Please note: short right field fences at virtually EVERY ballpark in the history of the game= easier for lefties to hit HR.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 19,979 ✭✭✭✭✭

    AIR or WAR? Which one fellas, let’s not get too crazy

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    It's a great theory, but as I said Powell wouldn't have beaten Hodges out for the 1st base position, so actually he would have beed traded or released or stuck in the minors.

    Huh? I ignored this the first time since it had nothing to do with my argument, and I'll do so again.

    Since time travel is impossible, we'll never know.

    And since we haven't flipped a coin twenty times, we don't "know" that it won't come up heads all twenty times. But "knowing" has nothing to do with anything. I don't "know" that Lyman Bostock wouldn't have hit 1,000 homers in his career if he hadn't died, but I'd feel awfully foolish trying to argue that he would have. Suffice it to say that Bostock hitting 1,000 homers was terribly unlikely, as what I've said - as opposed to this "know" crap that keeps popping up - is that it is terribly unlikely that Powell wouldn't have driven in more runs than Hodges given his plate appearances.

    I do LOVE IT when you ignore the fact that Powell hit lefty and Hodges righty, giving Boog a big "AIR" advantage because of the short right field fences at virtually EVERY ballpark in the history of the game.

    I ignore eye color and hair color, too. It makes no difference to me, and more importantly it makes no difference to the Dodgers, which side of the plate Hodges and Powell stood on. If Powell has an advantage for batting lefty then so be it, that just makes my conclusion more obvious than it already was. Ignoring the fact that the number of HR that barely clear the right field wall don't amount to a hill of beans over the course of a career (for Babe Ruth, the number was approximately zero), Ebbetts Field also had a short right field fence, and you are now officially not just agreeing with me, but making my argument for me.

    Also they play at least half their games on the road don't they?

    Yes, and the AIR factors I cited reflect that. AIR for Hodges was about 108, meaning that it was about 116 (16% easier than an average park) when he was at Ebbetts, and about 100 for the other half of his games. (It's a little more complicated than that, but that's close enough for discussion purposes.)

    I know you'll never concede it, but it's a fact not a "guess" which is all you can do when trying to figure out what a guy would do in someone else's era OR ballpark.

    Oh no, the other thing you can do is use your common sense. I agree that we can't "know", but a "guess" is a random event based on nothing more than a hunch. What I'm doing is neither; I'm looking at all of the available evidence and reaching the only logical conclusion that follows from it. Might Powell do worse in Ebbetts? Might my dog do calculus tomorrow? Sure, they are both possible, but terribly unlikely, and either event would contradict ALL of the available evidence.

    Please note: short right field fences at virtually EVERY ballpark in the history of the game= easier for lefties to hit HR.

    Again, thank you for confirming that Powell in Ebbetts would likely have been an absolute RBI god, leaving Hodges in the dust. And I am now officially curious why you think the Dodgers wouldn't have kept Powell and traded Hodges, since all of us agree that Powell playing in Ebbetts would have been a HR machine. Since you are now arguing that keeping Hodges would be stupid, I assume you've changed your mind.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Hodges; better than Cooper, better than Powell.

    They didn't play as often, didn't do as much, were never managers and didn't lose time because of military service.

    No if's and or buts.

    Goodnight ladies and gentleman.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    Hodges; better than Cooper, better than Powell.

    They didn't play as often, didn't do as much, were never managers and didn't lose time because of military service.

    Well, Powell was clearly the better hitter of the three, but overall the three were all very close. And if you want to make more assumptions about what Hodges might have done in the years he missed, you can do that. But by including the fact that he was a manager, you've made it clear that what you're arguing is not that he was a better player, but that he's more deserving of the HOF than the others. And that's a good place to end this, because I agree.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
Sign In or Register to comment.