@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!
Seems that the qualifications for character and sportsmanship are only used against players and never for them. If guys like Dale Murphy had those qualifications used in his favor, then in addition to his borderline statistical candidacy, he would be a lock.
I personally would like to see someone get recognized for their on the field character and sportsmanship contributions.
@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?
Well, after all the debating, what does daltex think?
Hodges, in or out?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@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?
Well, after all the debating, what does daltex think?
Hodges, in or out?
Banzi, you often cite how the writers felt who followed him...and if you go by that, he only had two finishes in the top ten in MVP voting, finishing 7th and 8th as his best. That isn't good enough for a guy who was washed up after age 35.
His best OPS+ finishes were 6,6,8, and 8. Again, not dominant enough for a guy who was washed up earlier than a typical HOFer.
Dale Murphy has a better case than Hodges, and if you go by the premise, 'best at his position in the decade,' then Murphy has that too, and probably a lot of other players throughout history who can claim they were the best at their position for ten years...and are still not worthy of the HOF.
I wouldn't run and give Hodges too much credit for missed military time. His age 23/24 seasons he had .237/.307.360. With some seasoning at age 21/22 in MLB(the years he missed), maybe that might have improved, or maybe he wasn't good enough to even play MLB at age 21....since at age 24 he was not that good. So maybe, maybe not.
I have biographies on most of the HOF ballplayers. Several were asked about Hodges and most felt he was good enough for the HOF, but overshadowed by some fantastic team mates. By the time they were all in, the voters had forgotten about him and were focused on the new group of guys.
He gets "punished" because there were no good 1st basemen during his time, so the claim he was best at his position gets eliminated, and at the same time punished because he played on a team with some of the best hitters of all time, and against guys like Williams, Mantle and Mays. Just because he wasn't as good as some of the best hitters of all time shouldn't exclude him.
OPS+ OPS+ OPS+ so tired of that flawed number. Even if you use it, it's still only one factor in rating a player.
Hodges hits it out of the park as a fielder, a sportsman, and I would say he was a pretty good manager too.
If his OPS+ number was higher, and he was a piece of you know what in EVERY other area, lots of guys would be in his corner. That is so wrong!
I just don't see an argument against the military time either. In '44 and 45 he was completely out of professional baseball.
Once back, he needed just one full year in the minors before being called up for good. Give him those two years (I could easily say one year in minors) in the minors and he gets 1946 as a rookie, I then assume he has a full '47 and '48 where he will most likely be very good, but you never can be sure.
I look at it more from an major league experience level than an age. He was mature enough to be a Marine, pro baseball couldn't have been that hard to figure out.
He could have had two MONSTER years in 1947 and '48 as well. I just figured they would be on par with 1949-59, that sure seams reasonable to me.
I also quoted several accomplishments that were better than LOTS of HOFers and stuff he did that was slightly below some of the all-time greats. A lot of those guys were cheaters and will get in the HOF someday. But not Gil. And many on these boards complain because the HOF is watered down, better that than when the cheaters get in.
Lots of guys in the hall were washed up by 35. Murphy was one of them. Foxx and Dimaggio were too. They were all probably better than Gil, he was still good enough.
He's still better imo than at least 25% of the guys in the HOF, I cited several 1st basemen that are in who were no where near as good as Gill, but played in eras where they stood out because of their poor competition and got in.
Murphy should be in as well.
My thoughts are some guys look at OPS+ (and Gils should be higher imo) and say "NO" without looking at the whole picture.
Doesn't matter though, I couldn't even sway the OP, so I must be wrong.
Sad that no one seems to care about integrity,class and sportsmanship.
Just keep ignoring what I say and keep slugging away with OPS+.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
i actually enjoy you pointing out the integrity and sportsmanship.
I will concede the military aspect in your favor too. It certainly doesn't help to be away for two full years during those formative years. That could have been the difference of him hitting 400 home runs...and a few uptick in his percentages. At that time, that probably would have been enough for him to get voted into the HOF, as he was around 50% of the ballot a few times as it was.
PS. OPS+ is just one...and it is a quick easy one...but definitely not the only one. But for example, when one has an OPS+ of 110 and another of 140....and they have EQUAL legnth careers, there is no debate or wiggle room. The varrying career legnths and plate appearances(sitting vs lefties for example), alter OPS and OPS+ value....it also alters batting average too,and any other percentage measurement.
Linear weights, Batter Runs are more accurate. The Linear Weights and every on base situation, even more so. Those say the same thing as OPS+ in most cases, so there really isn't a need to go over every stat when they say the same thing most of the time.
Lifetime Batter RUns:
Hodges has 200
Mantle 859
McCovey 551
Duke Snider 410
Jim Rice 299
Kent Hrbk 256
Dave Parker 245
Dale Murphy 225
Andre Dawson 218
Don Baylor 217
Cecil Cooper 192
That gives a pretty good picture where Hodges fits in. Nowhere near the elite. He is right there with some borderline HOF players and some pretty good ones not in the Hall.
If you account for his military time, then maybe he gets up in the 250+ range. Add a little defensive value...yeah, then he may have a case. Add his sportsmanship characteristics, then one could at least make an argument.
i actually enjoy you pointing out the integrity and sportsmanship.
I will concede the military aspect in your favor too. It certainly doesn't help to be away for two full years during those formative years. That could have been the difference of him hitting 400 home runs...and a few uptick in his percentages. At that time, that probably would have been enough for him to get voted into the HOF, as he was around 50% of the ballot a few times as it was.
PS. OPS+ is just one...and it is a quick easy one...but definitely not the only one. But for example, when one has an OPS+ of 110 and another of 140....and they have EQUAL legnth careers, there is no debate or wiggle room. The varrying career legnths and plate appearances(sitting vs lefties for example), alter OPS and OPS+ value....it also alters batting average too,and any other percentage measurement.
Linear weights, Batter Runs are more accurate. The Linear Weights and every on base situation, even more so. Those say the same thing as OPS+ in most cases, so there really isn't a need to go over every stat when they say the same thing most of the time.
Lifetime Batter RUns:
Hodges has 200
Mantle 859
McCovey 551
Duke Snider 410
Jim Rice 299
Kent Hrbk 256
Dave Parker 245
Dale Murphy 225
Andre Dawson 218
Don Baylor 217
Cecil Cooper 192
That gives a pretty good picture where Hodges fits in. Nowhere near the elite. He is right there with some borderline HOF players and some pretty good ones not in the Hall.
If you account for his military time, then maybe he gets up in the 250+ range. Add a little defensive value...yeah, then he may have a case. Add his sportsmanship characteristics, then one could at least make an argument.
I appreciate the aspects you brought up.
Your points are valid.
One of the things I don't like about OPS+ is that it can make a part time player look a lot better than a guy who shows up every day.
When comparing Powell and Cooper to Hodges in an earlier thread they had some great OPS+ numbers in years they played in less than a full year;
Powell had an OPS+ of over 125 every year 1971-75 and averaged 483 PA over that time. Not bad, but when a star player misses time it hurts the team.
Cecil Cooper's 1975 confounds me!
143 OPS+ here certainly looks a lot better than.........103 games played 14 HR and .355 OB%?!?!?!?!?!? This would seem to count as a full year in "career length". I look at it as a below average year for a player I was counting on to be a leader.
Rod Carew had a great year hitting as many HR, batting .349 and OB% .421 yet his OPS+ is just 14 points higher? OK?
Cooper's '75 was about equal "+" wise to Hodges' 1952 when Gil missed one game, hit 32 HR, drove in 102 walked 107 time and has a .386 OB%. Similar value? Well, I don't see it. AT ALL!
A lot of other guys must have done well in 1952 I guess to make that year of equal value to Cooper's '75. I will never see how one equals the other. I looked it up just to make sure 1975 was a full 162 game season not 110.
Funny, only two guys hit more HR in the NL than Gill in 1952 and they hit just 37. Gil was 4th in Adjusted Batting Wins and Runs, 4th in RBI 2nd in walks, 4th in OB% and SLG, a bunch of other top 10 categories, so he was great that year.
Cooper is nowhere in 1975.
Same OPS+
One final question regarding Hodges; Other than Lou Gehrig, has any player in history of MLB played in 98% of their teams games averaging 30 HR and 100RBI a season for 10 consecutive years AND playing gold glove quality defense?
Any even come close?
Let me know who come closest, if you look.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Tabe said:
OPS+ is a rate statistic not a counting state. It's simply incorrect to use it to compare "value" when plate appearances/games are wildly different.
I am not sure what that means, but when two guys have a similar OPS+ people think it means they are the same.
That is completely false in this case. Hodges looks to be about the 5th best offensive player in 1952, Cooper not so much in 1975.
I get tired of being beaten about the head with this OPS+ garbage.
Lifetime, one guy has a big OPS advantage and the other guy is better with OPS+ and he was nowhere near as good.
You seem to be a math guy, please explain how Cecil Cooper can get a number like 143 in a year like he had in 1975. 145 seems like a HOF type number that was NOT a HOF type year.
It drives me crazy when it's said Cooper was the exact same hitter as Hodges.
Same thing (sort of) when you look at 162 game averages. If both players didn't play close to the same percentage of games per season the guy who missed a lot of games will look a LOT better than he actually was, assuming he was pretty good.
We usually argue about very good players. When a good player misses a game a much poorer player usually replaces him, so guys that perform well and play all the time should be rewarded for that, not punished.
Oh well. Happy 4th of July! Be careful and don't blow yourself up!!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Frank Chance? Jake Beckley?? George Kelly? Jim Bottomley? Several 1B guys that don't look as good as Gil.
I'll give you Kelly and Bottomley. Beckley was actually pretty good, but it's hard to evaluate 19th century players. Too little data. I'll call Chance's playing career just about a push, but his managerial career was vastly superior. Anyway, an argument could be made that Chance is in the HOF because of a poem. It certainly eased the way for him.
Anyway, all this is beside the point. We can all agree that there are players in the HOF who don't deserve to be there. How many is a function of how big each of us believes the HOF should be. If you think players like Hodges and Mattingly belong your list will likely be shorter than those who think Trammell was a huge mistake. The point is if you're going to enshrine people just because they are better than George Kelly, or whoever, you should start with the best players that have been omitted. IMO Hodges isn't even close.
@Tabe said:
OPS+ is a rate statistic not a counting state. It's simply incorrect to use it to compare "value" when plate appearances/games are wildly different.
I am not sure what that means, but when two guys have a similar OPS+ people think it means they are the same.
Other than 1970s, who makes this mistake all the time, I don't think anyone who is aware of OPS+ makes this mistake. OPS+ does an excellent job of capturing half of a hitter's value - it tells you how good a hitter he was. The other half is taking into account for how long the hitter was that good. For Hodges and Cooper, OPS+ is about the same, and the length of their careers is about the same. They were about the same. For Hodges and Powell the length of their careers is about the same, but Powell beats Hodges handily in OPS+ and every other stat (batter runs, WPA, Win Shares) that matters. Powell was better.
That is completely false in this case. Hodges looks to be about the 5th best offensive player in 1952, Cooper not so much in 1975.
Cooper was somewhere between the 25th and 30th best hitter in the AL in 1975; Hodges about 5th in 1952. You can stop obsessing about OPS+ as a stand-alone ranking tool; nobody is using it that way.
Lifetime, one guy has a big OPS advantage and the other guy is better with OPS+ and he was nowhere near as good.
If the guy with the higher OPS+ didn't play as long, then you're probably right. But if he did, you're probably wrong. But if you're talking about something besides career length here, then you need to explain how you determined that the player with the higher OPS+ was nowhere near as good as the player with the lower OPS+.
You seem to be a math guy, please explain how Cecil Cooper can get a number like 143 in a year like he had in 1975. 145 seems like a HOF type number that was NOT a HOF type year.
It drives me crazy when it's said Cooper was the exact same hitter as Hodges.
They were very similar hitters over the course of their careers, but Cooper's 1975 wasn't as good as his OPS+ alone indicates. First, because he only came to the plate 333 times, and second because a big reason why his PA was so low was that he was used as a DH mostly against RHP. Still, he wasn't that bad against lefties, and if he had faced the expected number of LHP his OPS+ would drop from 143 to 138, assuming he did as well against the extra lefties as he did against the ones he did face.
But Cooper's managers stopped holding him out against LHP soon after that, and the effect of those missing LHP at bats is too small to measure by the end of his career. Same for Hodges, who was only able to hang around as long as he did by facing mostly LHP and sitting against RHP in his last four seasons; it's a mark against his OPS+, but one that's too small to measure.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Tabe said:
OPS+ is a rate statistic not a counting state. It's simply incorrect to use it to compare "value" when plate appearances/games are wildly different.
I am not sure what that means, but when two guys have a similar OPS+ people think it means they are the same.
Rate stats are stuff like batting average - stuff that measures percentages rather than actual output. Batting average tells you often a guy gets hits but doesn't tell you how many. OPS+ measures how successful a hitter is but doesn't tell you anything about his actual output. That's why games played matters.
You seem to be a math guy, please explain how Cecil Cooper can get a number like 143 in a year like he had in 1975. 145 seems like a HOF type number that was NOT a HOF type year.
I am a math guy. Have a math degree.
In 1975, the AL as a whole had a .707 OPS. Cooper had an .899. OPS+ takes the ratios of OBP vs league OPB and SLG vs league SLG and then adds those together. Cooper's OBP was decent but nothing special. His SLG, though, was .544 - 44% above league average. Add it all together, mix in a downgrade because his numbers are inflated by Fenway and you get 143.
No, 143 isn't a HOF-type year - unless you have a ton of them (ex: Ken Griffey Jr had a career 136).
Linear weights, Batter Runs are more accurate. The Linear Weights and every on base situation, even more so. Those say the same thing as OPS+ in most cases, so there really isn't a need to go over every stat when they say the same thing most of the time.
Lifetime Batter RUns:
Hodges has 200
Jim Rice 299
Kent Hrbk 256
Dave Parker 245
Dale Murphy 225
Andre Dawson 218
Don Baylor 217
Cecil Cooper 192
If Kent Hrbek was that good, then I wonder why he was only a 1-time all-star?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Linear weights, Batter Runs are more accurate. The Linear Weights and every on base situation, even more so. Those say the same thing as OPS+ in most cases, so there really isn't a need to go over every stat when they say the same thing most of the time.
Lifetime Batter RUns:
Hodges has 200
Jim Rice 299
Kent Hrbk 256
Dave Parker 245
Dale Murphy 225
Andre Dawson 218
Don Baylor 217
Cecil Cooper 192
If Kent Hrbek was that good, then I wonder why he was only a 1-time all-star?
FINALLY, a subject I consider myself an expert on!
In a word Don Mattingly.
Mattingly was a great player who had a few monster years 1984-87 and then hitting wise dropped off.
Hrbek never had that big year to get noticed but he was regarded as just as good defensively as Don. Don just collected his GG every year. Hrbek never led the league in any hitting category.
After '87 Hrbek was the better hitter and even though the Twins won championships in '87 and '91, Puckett was the marquee guy and Kent was considered the "contributor"
There was a LOT of talk here in Minnesota about how Mattingly was not deserving of the AS and GG every year.
If I remember correctly Kent even said he wouldn't go to another AS game at one point as he felt he was being snubbed.
The knock on Hrbek was that he wasn't always in superb condition and that he wasn't as dedicated as he should be "or he would be a HOFer for sure". He was kind of pudgy for much of his career.
Lifetime numbers are pretty similar. If you look at AS and GG. Mattingly is far superior.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Frank Chance? Jake Beckley?? George Kelly? Jim Bottomley? Several 1B guys that don't look as good as Gil.
I'll give you Kelly and Bottomley. Beckley was actually pretty good, but it's hard to evaluate 19th century players. Too little data. I'll call Chance's playing career just about a push, but his managerial career was vastly superior. Anyway, an argument could be made that Chance is in the HOF because of a poem. It certainly eased the way for him.
They were all pretty good. Good catch on the poem. I didn't choose to bring that up.
Anyway, all this is beside the point. We can all agree that there are players in the HOF who don't deserve to be there. How many is a function of how big each of us believes the HOF should be. If you think players like Hodges and Mattingly belong your list will likely be shorter than those who think Trammell was a huge mistake. The point is if you're going to enshrine people just because they are better than George Kelly, or whoever, you should start with the best players that have been omitted. IMO Hodges isn't even close.
If there was a group of players considered to be All-Time Greats and I was better than even one of them, I would feel like I "belonged".
If I was better than 10-25% of them and several at my position, I would be baffled.
I can see an objection to putting Hodges in, even though I would, but to say he isn't even close I can't agree with.
@Tabe said:
OPS+ is a rate statistic not a counting state. It's simply incorrect to use it to compare "value" when plate appearances/games are wildly different.
I am not sure what that means, but when two guys have a similar OPS+ people think it means they are the same.
Rate stats are stuff like batting average - stuff that measures percentages rather than actual output. Batting average tells you often a guy gets hits but doesn't tell you how many. OPS+ measures how successful a hitter is but doesn't tell you anything about his actual output. That's why games played matters.
You seem to be a math guy, please explain how Cecil Cooper can get a number like 143 in a year like he had in 1975. 145 seems like a HOF type number that was NOT a HOF type year.
I am a math guy. Have a math degree.
In 1975, the AL as a whole had a .707 OPS. Cooper had an .899. OPS+ takes the ratios of OBP vs league OPB and SLG vs league SLG and then adds those together. Cooper's OBP was decent but nothing special. His SLG, though, was .544 - 44% above league average. Add it all together, mix in a downgrade because his numbers are inflated by Fenway and you get 143.
No, 143 isn't a HOF-type year - unless you have a ton of them (ex: Ken Griffey Jr had a career 136).
I kind of figured you were educated. I (obviously) am not. I have just been using (simple) math on a daily basis in my occupations for about 44 years. I try to "boil out" the B.S. and use what is actually meaningful.
One of the things OPS+ assumes is that all the players in the comparison groups other than our subjects are equal, or so it looks like to me.
Hodges supposedly played in an era where it was easier to hit for a high OPS, so his OPS+ number gets reduced in the final computation.
How about Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial and Willie Mays? Might they effect the numbers a bit? Any players in the 1970's as dominant as they were? Also there might be some guys who were playing in the 1970's (lots more players overall) who completely SUCKED.
I don't know how to put this into a formula, but maybe it WASN'T actually as hard to hit for a high OPS in the 1970's, maybe they just weren't as good? OPS+ says they WERE just as good, but because they weren't hitting as high of numbers as a group we are going to reduce the OPS+ numbers of the guys from the 1950's.
Did I get that right?
I did a quick check on 5 guys who were great hitters in the 1970's Reggie, Rice, Brett, Carew and Yaz. Together they hit for an OPS of above 1.0 two times in the entire decade. Was it harder to hit or were they just not as good a group as Williams Mantle Musial etc.?
In this case, I could make the claim that Hodges' numbers should be increased, not decreased. At the very least left alone.
In fact, I submit that it is impossible for both decades to have EXACTLY comparable players. WAY too many variables.
Finally, my absolute favorite "Park Factor". If it's not adjusted to compensate for BOTH the shorter right field distances and the "lefty righty" advantage that left handed hitters receive. it's COMPLETELY WORTHLESS. Unless you compare a right handed hitter to another right hander and vicey versey.
Both Powell and Cooper had a HUGE advantage in almost every ball park and against 66% or more of the pitchers they faced. I did check Memorial Stadium and it was one of the few parks with similar left and right fields, so Booger gets some extra consideration for his home park, but not on the road.
My simple mindedness says if player A has to hit the ball 350 feet to left to hit a HR and player B has to hit it 300 feet to right to hit a HR. Player A has to be better to hit a HR. No?
Oh well. Again I don't really care, but after looking at WAY too many players, I am even MORE convinced that Hodges is a sure fire absolute HOFer and anyone who can't see that he did a LOT more than needed, is looking at the wrong (or flawed) information.
Anyone come up with another player with a 10 year "peak" like Gil's? Played in 98% off his teams games, 30 HR every year 100 RBI and BB every year? Only Lou Gehrig?
BANZAI+ the new gold standard in HOF worthy evaluation. LOL
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Tabe said:
OPS+ is a rate statistic not a counting state. It's simply incorrect to use it to compare "value" when plate appearances/games are wildly different.
I am not sure what that means, but when two guys have a similar OPS+ people think it means they are the same.
Other than 1970s, who makes this mistake all the time, I don't think anyone who is aware of OPS+ makes this mistake. OPS+ does an excellent job of capturing half of a hitter's value - it tells you how good a hitter he was. The other half is taking into account for how long the hitter was that good. For Hodges and Cooper, OPS+ is about the same, and the length of their careers is about the same. They were about the same. For Hodges and Powell the length of their careers is about the same, but Powell beats Hodges handily in OPS+ and every other stat (batter runs, WPA, Win Shares) that matters. Powell was better.
That is completely false in this case. Hodges looks to be about the 5th best offensive player in 1952, Cooper not so much in 1975.
Cooper was somewhere between the 25th and 30th best hitter in the AL in 1975; Hodges about 5th in 1952. You can stop obsessing about OPS+ as a stand-alone ranking tool; nobody is using it that way.
Lifetime, one guy has a big OPS advantage and the other guy is better with OPS+ and he was nowhere near as good.
If the guy with the higher OPS+ didn't play as long, then you're probably right. But if he did, you're probably wrong. But if you're talking about something besides career length here, then you need to explain how you determined that the player with the higher OPS+ was nowhere near as good as the player with the lower OPS+.
You seem to be a math guy, please explain how Cecil Cooper can get a number like 143 in a year like he had in 1975. 145 seems like a HOF type number that was NOT a HOF type year.
It drives me crazy when it's said Cooper was the exact same hitter as Hodges.
They were very similar hitters over the course of their careers, but Cooper's 1975 wasn't as good as his OPS+ alone indicates. First, because he only came to the plate 333 times, and second because a big reason why his PA was so low was that he was used as a DH mostly against RHP. Still, he wasn't that bad against lefties, and if he had faced the expected number of LHP his OPS+ would drop from 143 to 138, assuming he did as well against the extra lefties as he did against the ones he did face.
But Cooper's managers stopped holding him out against LHP soon after that, and the effect of those missing LHP at bats is too small to measure by the end of his career. Same for Hodges, who was only able to hang around as long as he did by facing mostly LHP and sitting against RHP in his last four seasons; it's a mark against his OPS+, but one that's too small to measure.
OPS+ about as good as BA in evaluating a player's ability.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
OPS+ about as good as BA in evaluating a player's ability.
At first I laughed at your joke, but then I couldn't help but wonder if you really were joking. BA is, of course, a small subset of OPS+. OPS+ measures what BA does, and then measures quite a bit more. Roughly, I'd say it's 10 times a better measure than BA. It is, by far, the best readily available rate stat, and once you have it there is truly no point to looking at any other.
And I've skimmed back through all of your posts and I don't see anywhere where you've acknowledged how much easier it was to get hits (of every kind) and to score and drive in runs in Ebbetts Field in the 1950's than it was in virtually any other ballpark at any other time. If you are denying that fact, then debate is pointless. If you do acknowledge that fact, then it would help a lot if you'd explain how you are taking that fact into account in your analysis.
We also seem to be stuck on the Tier III first baseman of Hodges, Cooper and Powell (and Dolf Camilli, Frank Chance, Bob Watson, and Steve Garvey, all of whom were pretty comparable players). I assume by your silence when I mentioned them that you agree that the Tier II guys, Dick Allen, Will Clark and Keith Hernandez, were head and shoulders better than the guys we're talking about. If you don't, I'll just sign off from the discussion, having no idea where to go from there.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Frank Chance? Jake Beckley?? George Kelly? Jim Bottomley? Several 1B guys that don't look as good as Gil.
I'll give you Kelly and Bottomley. Beckley was actually pretty good, but it's hard to evaluate 19th century players. Too little data. I'll call Chance's playing career just about a push, but his managerial career was vastly superior. Anyway, an argument could be made that Chance is in the HOF because of a poem. It certainly eased the way for him.
They were all pretty good. Good catch on the poem. I didn't choose to bring that up.
Anyway, all this is beside the point. We can all agree that there are players in the HOF who don't deserve to be there. How many is a function of how big each of us believes the HOF should be. If you think players like Hodges and Mattingly belong your list will likely be shorter than those who think Trammell was a huge mistake. The point is if you're going to enshrine people just because they are better than George Kelly, or whoever, you should start with the best players that have been omitted. IMO Hodges isn't even close.
If there was a group of players considered to be All-Time Greats and I was better than even one of them, I would feel like I "belonged".
If I was better than 10-25% of them and several at my position, I would be baffled.
I can see an objection to putting Hodges in, even though I would, but to say he isn't even close I can't agree with.
I'm perfectly fine saying Kelly and Bottomley were mistakes. The HOF has a lot of mistakes. I don't believe that JAWS is a perfect stat, but it is a good place to start. There are 15 first basemen with a higher JAWS than Hodges who are NOT in the HOF. Some of them (Paul Goldschmidt, Mark McGwire) have very good reasons, but not being in the top 15 at his position not enshrined is "not even close" to being the best player missing out.
You can say this all you want, but I doubt you'll find many who will say "Anybody who was better than Candy Cummings belongs in." FWIW, I believe Cummings is the worst player in the HOF.
@JoeBanzai said:
OPS+ about as good as BA in evaluating a player's ability.
At first I laughed at your joke, but then I couldn't help but wonder if you really were joking. BA is, of course, a small subset of OPS+. OPS+ measures what BA does, and then measures quite a bit more. Roughly, I'd say it's 10 times a better measure than BA. It is, by far, the best readily available rate stat, and once you have it there is truly no point to looking at any other.
And I've skimmed back through all of your posts and I don't see anywhere where you've acknowledged how much easier it was to get hits (of every kind) and to score and drive in runs in Ebbetts Field in the 1950's than it was in virtually any other ballpark at any other time. If you are denying that fact, then debate is pointless. If you do acknowledge that fact, then it would help a lot if you'd explain how you are taking that fact into account in your analysis.
We also seem to be stuck on the Tier III first baseman of Hodges, Cooper and Powell (and Dolf Camilli, Frank Chance, Bob Watson, and Steve Garvey, all of whom were pretty comparable players). I assume by your silence when I mentioned them that you agree that the Tier II guys, Dick Allen, Will Clark and Keith Hernandez, were head and shoulders better than the guys we're talking about. If you don't, I'll just sign off from the discussion, having no idea where to go from there.
I was being a little sarcastic about OPS+ being about as good as BA, but it does completely ignore how much of a season is missed by a player. Even BA has a qualifying number of AB to be the batting champ, buy OPS+ gets shoved out there like it's much more than an average.
A guy plays well for 100 games and has the same OPS+ as a guy who plays 98% of his teams games does not mean they were both equal as hitters.
You say it yourself time and time again, so and so sat out against tough pitchers to make his numbers look better.
Garvey, Clark and Hernandez are very good players. Allen was a great slugger, but he just played "full time" for about 6-8 years he missed to many games to be in my HOF even though he was a fantastic hitter, probably the best hitter of the bunch, but that's not what we are discussing.
I don't respond to the Ebbets field comment just like you refuse to address the left handed batter advantage, which is the same thing, only more of an advantage for lefties. ALL their parks are easy to hit in.
You are the stat guy, where's your list of guys who had 10 year streaks playing in 98% of their teams games and averaging 30 HR 100 RBI and 100 Walks a year?
Frank Chance? Jake Beckley?? George Kelly? Jim Bottomley? Several 1B guys that don't look as good as Gil.
I'll give you Kelly and Bottomley. Beckley was actually pretty good, but it's hard to evaluate 19th century players. Too little data. I'll call Chance's playing career just about a push, but his managerial career was vastly superior. Anyway, an argument could be made that Chance is in the HOF because of a poem. It certainly eased the way for him.
They were all pretty good. Good catch on the poem. I didn't choose to bring that up.
Anyway, all this is beside the point. We can all agree that there are players in the HOF who don't deserve to be there. How many is a function of how big each of us believes the HOF should be. If you think players like Hodges and Mattingly belong your list will likely be shorter than those who think Trammell was a huge mistake. The point is if you're going to enshrine people just because they are better than George Kelly, or whoever, you should start with the best players that have been omitted. IMO Hodges isn't even close.
If there was a group of players considered to be All-Time Greats and I was better than even one of them, I would feel like I "belonged".
If I was better than 10-25% of them and several at my position, I would be baffled.
I can see an objection to putting Hodges in, even though I would, but to say he isn't even close I can't agree with.
I'm perfectly fine saying Kelly and Bottomley were mistakes. The HOF has a lot of mistakes. I don't believe that JAWS is a perfect stat, but it is a good place to start. There are 15 first basemen with a higher JAWS than Hodges who are NOT in the HOF. Some of them (Paul Goldschmidt, Mark McGwire) have very good reasons, but not being in the top 15 at his position not enshrined is "not even close" to being the best player missing out.
You can say this all you want, but I doubt you'll find many who will say "Anybody who was better than Candy Cummings belongs in." FWIW, I believe Cummings is the worst player in the HOF.
Come ON. Paul Goldschmidt! He's a current player and McGwire has the steroid thing against him. Dolf Camilli got mentioned somewhere for God sake.
JAWS does rate Hodges above Mattingly, Powell, Cooper, Grace, Watson. Pretty much ALL the guys brought up in comparison with Gil. Hernandez is quite a bit higher and I have said I think he should be in.
I don't see too many guys on the list above him that weren't HOF players.
And let's keep bringing up Candy Cummings!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I was being a little sarcastic about OPS+ being about as good as BA, but it does completely ignore how much of a season is missed by a player. Even BA has a qualifying number of AB to be the batting champ, buy OPS+ gets shoved out there like it's much more than an average.
A guy plays well for 100 games and has the same OPS+ as a guy who plays 98% of his teams games does not mean they were both equal as hitters.
And nobody is saying they are, so I don't know who you're arguing with here. To qualify for the OPS+ leaders a player also needs to have the same qualifying number of PA, so I don't even know what point you're trying to make.
Garvey, Clark and Hernandez are very good players. Allen was a great slugger, but he just played "full time" for about 6-8 years he missed to many games to be in my HOF even though he was a fantastic hitter, probably the best hitter of the bunch, but that's not what we are discussing.
Noting in passing that you still haven't answered the question whether Clark and Hernandez were better than Hodges (Garvey wasn't, he's just in the comparable group), let's focus on Allen. Yes, Allen's career was short(ish), about a season and a half shorter than Hodges. And yet in 800 or so fewer plate appearances, Allen compiled 68% more oWAR, 138% more batter runs, 80% more WPA and 29% more Win Shares (lower because Allen was a bad fielder). Allen could have batted 800 more times and literally struck out each and every time and still have an OPS+ of 131 and still destroy Hodges in every meaningful stat. To say that Allen was probably better than Hodges is to say that Wilt Chamberlain was probably taller than Spud Webb; it does not do justice to the chasm of hitting ability that separates the two.
I don't respond to the Ebbets field comment just like you refuse to address the left handed batter advantage, which is the same thing, only more of an advantage for lefties. ALL their parks are easy to hit in.
Oh, but I did respond to your question, so I know that has nothing to do with why you are dodging my question. Yes, batting left-handed gives a person an advantage, in exactly the same way that being stronger or faster than other players does. My response to your question is, in essence, so what? Presented with a left-handed hitting Powell and a right-handed hitting Hodges, your position is that the Dodgers in the 1950's would have played Hodges. Simultaneously, your position is that, because he hit left-handed, Powell had an enormous advantage, especially at Ebbetts Field, over the right-handed hitting Hodges. Obviously, your two positions contradict themselves, which is why this discussion keeps going in circles (that, and because you won't answer questions).
You are the stat guy, where's your list of guys who had 10 year streaks playing in 98% of their teams games and averaging 30 HR 100 RBI and 100 Walks a year?
I can find all kinds of "who has done this?" crap if I focus on the raw numbers, and ignore context. Hitters in hitter's parks lead the league in most stuff most of the time, and compile streaks that hitters in pitcher's parks, or neutral parks, simply can't. Yes, I am the stat guy, and as such I refuse to lend any credence whatsoever to 100 RBI seasons, or 30 HR seasons, or any other stat that reflects more on the ballpark and team than on the player in question. I will say, though, that if Hodges had done what you say he did - averaged 100 walks for those 10 seasons, we'd be having a different discussion. Because if Hodges had done that - not clear to me at all why you are claiming he did, by the way - his OPS+ would be 7 points higher and he'd clearly be better than Cooper, et. al.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
OK. Here is the list of first basemen who have higher JAWS than Hodges and are not HOFers.
Albert Pujols
Miguel Cabrerra
Rafael Palmeiro
Todd Helton
Joey Votto
Mark McGwire
Keith Hernandez
John Olerud
Jason Giambi
Will Clark
David Ortiz
Mark Teixeira
Fred McGriff
Norm Cash
Dolph Camilli
Paul Goldschmidt
I don't know about you, but there are not a lot of names on that list that scream "HOFer" to me, but few of them are demonstrably worse than Hodges. Still, if you are going to say that 21 first basemen aren't enough, this is the list I would start to pick from. A short (95th of all time) and undistinguished (.467 winning percentage) managerial career punctuated by one (rightly) celebrated World Series doesn't enhance his resume one bit.
@daltex said:
OK. Here is the list of first basemen who have higher JAWS than Hodges and are not HOFers.
Albert Pujols
Miguel Cabrerra
Rafael Palmeiro
Todd Helton
Joey Votto
Mark McGwire
Keith Hernandez
John Olerud
Jason Giambi
Will Clark
David Ortiz
Mark Teixeira
Fred McGriff
Norm Cash
Dolph Camilli
Paul Goldschmidt
I don't know about you, but there are not a lot of names on that list that scream "HOFer" to me, but few of them are demonstrably worse than Hodges. Still, if you are going to say that 21 first basemen aren't enough, this is the list I would start to pick from. A short (95th of all time) and undistinguished (.467 winning percentage) managerial career punctuated by one (rightly) celebrated World Series doesn't enhance his resume one bit.
Why list players who are still playing or just retired?
Why list juicers?
LOTS of 1st baseman are GREAT hitters. Several on the above list are better than Hodges and some are not as good.
If you want about 100 guys total in the hall your'e too late.
Hodges' total accomplishments offensively, defensively. as a manager. as a sportsman add up to a HOFer to me.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Oh, but I did respond to your question, so I know that has nothing to do with why you are dodging my question. Yes, batting left-handed gives a person an advantage, in exactly the same way that being stronger or faster than other players does. My response to your question is, in essence, so what? Presented with a left-handed hitting Powell and a right-handed hitting Hodges, your position is that the Dodgers in the 1950's would have played Hodges. Simultaneously, your position is that, because he hit left-handed, Powell had an enormous advantage, especially at Ebbetts Field, over the right-handed hitting Hodges. Obviously, your two positions contradict themselves, which is why this discussion keeps going in circles (that, and because you won't answer questions).
The contradiction is that you go on and on about how easy it was to hit in Ebbets, but say the shorter fences in right in every park isn't the same reasoning as hitting in a smaller park like Ebbets.
Left Field almost always farther than right = easier to hit if you bat left.
Ebbets was an easy park to hit in. EVERY park is easier for a left handed batter to hit in. Name ONE park where right field down the line is farther than left. A weaker left handed hitter then can hit home runs easier than a similar or even stronger right handed guy.
Very basic reasoning here, but it seems to escape you.
Powell couldn't beat out Gentile, Hodges never missed a game. Boog would have sat.
You are the stat guy, where's your list of guys who had 10 year streaks playing in 98% of their teams games and averaging 30 HR 100 RBI and 100 Walks a year?
I can find all kinds of "who has done this?" crap if I focus on the raw numbers, and ignore context. Hitters in hitter's parks lead the league in most stuff most of the time, and compile streaks that hitters in pitcher's parks, or neutral parks, simply can't. Yes, I am the stat guy, and as such I refuse to lend any credence whatsoever to 100 RBI seasons, or 30 HR seasons, or any other stat that reflects more on the ballpark and team than on the player in question. I will say, though, that if Hodges had done what you say he did - averaged 100 walks for those 10 seasons, we'd be having a different discussion. Because if Hodges had done that - not clear to me at all why you are claiming he did, by the way - his OPS+ would be 7 points higher and he'd clearly be better than Cooper, et. al.
Yes I did make an error on the walks. That was a big mistake.
Can you find someone who did it minus the 100 walks? No.
He's already clearly better than Cooper and Powell, Powell comes closer though. Powell was too up and down for me. A great year followed by a bad one or two and missed a lot of games. I don't know if he sat against tough left handers or was hurt a lot but he didn't play enough % of his teams games.
Powell had 3 years with over 500 AB Hodges had 9. They both had a couple that were just short of 500.
It has now been revealed that OPS+ is an average, so the guy who seems to be similar and plays a higher % of the time is BETTER.
I don't know about you, but this has become tiresome, as it usually does.
I am sure we will find someone else to argue/debate about soon.
Happy 4th of July to you and everyone else!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
The contradiction is that you go on and on about how easy it was to hit in Ebbets, but say the shorter fences in right in every park isn't the same reasoning as hitting in a smaller park like Ebbets.
Left Field almost always farther than right = easier to hit if you bat left.
Ebbets was an easy park to hit in. EVERY park is easier for a left handed batter to hit in. Name ONE park where right field down the line is farther than left. A weaker left handed hitter then can hit home runs easier than a similar or even stronger right handed guy.
Very basic reasoning here, but it seems to escape you.
Seriously, WTF? I will repeat this as clearly as I can. Yes, it is easier to hit in Ebbetts. Yes, there are shorter fences in RF almost everywhere and this makes it easier for lefties. Yes, lefties in Ebbetts would have had it especially easy. And yes, this applies to Powell, and you have convinced me that he would have outhit Hodges by a country mile. ALL of your arguments lead to this inescapable conclusion, and yet you are the single only person who it is escaping.
Powell couldn't beat out Gentile, Hodges never missed a game. Boog would have sat.
Couldn't beat out Gentile? You're just fu**ing with me now, right? When Hodges came up the O's had a great first baseman and a terrible left fielder; Powell could play either, so he replaced the terrible left fielder and he and Gentile were both regular starters for two seasons until they traded Gentile. To keep Powell's bat in the lineup the O's would have played him at SS if they had to, and they would have benched Gentile if they had to, but not being stupid they kept both Powell and Gentile in the lineup at positions they could both play reasonably well.
As for Hodges, and Boog sitting, you have already provided an airtight proof that this is false, so I'm not falling for that silliness.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I kind of figured you were educated. I (obviously) am not. I have just been using (simple) math on a daily basis in my occupations for about 44 years. I try to "boil out" the B.S. and use what is actually meaningful.
I dunno about educated
One of the things OPS+ assumes is that all the players in the comparison groups other than our subjects are equal, or so it looks like to me.
It compares a player against all other players for a given season. The goal of OPS+ is to calculate how well a given player, in a given year, performed in comparison to an average player.
Hodges supposedly played in an era where it was easier to hit for a high OPS, so his OPS+ number gets reduced in the final computation.
Not exactly. He hit in an era where it was easier to hit in general. So what looks like an unbelievable season might not translate quite as well in terms of OPS+ because EVERYBODY was hitting better. Kinda like how hitting .300 in the National League in 1930 was no big deal since the entire league hit .303 for the year.
How about Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial and Willie Mays? Might they effect the numbers a bit? Any players in the 1970's as dominant as they were? Also there might be some guys who were playing in the 1970's (lots more players overall) who completely SUCKED.
In a given season in the 1950s, there were approximately 95000 plate appearances across all players. Your four guys would account for maybe 2600 of those or about 2.7%. Their cumulative input into the league OBP and SLG used to calculate OPS+ isn't going to have that huge of an effect. Four guys with OBPs of .400 instead of .340 just isn't going to change the league OBP all that much.
I don't know how to put this into a formula, but maybe it WASN'T actually as hard to hit for a high OPS in the 1970's, maybe they just weren't as good? OPS+ says they WERE just as good, but because they weren't hitting as high of numbers as a group we are going to reduce the OPS+ numbers of the guys from the 1950's.
Did I get that right?
Basically. For a truly mega-superstar to hit for a higher OPS+ in the mid-70s, yes, it would be easier, simply because hitting in general was so much harder in the mid-70s. However...hitting was a lot harder in the mid-70s. It all cancels itself out.
I did a quick check on 5 guys who were great hitters in the 1970's Reggie, Rice, Brett, Carew and Yaz. Together they hit for an OPS of above 1.0 two times in the entire decade. Was it harder to hit or were they just not as good a group as Williams Mantle Musial etc.?
Both. Don't think you'll find anybody arguing those guys were as good as Williams, Mantle & Musial. But it was also a lot harder to hit in general.
In fact, I submit that it is impossible for both decades to have EXACTLY comparable players. WAY too many variables.
Nobody makes the claim that the decades have exactly comparable players.
Finally, my absolute favorite "Park Factor". If it's not adjusted to compensate for BOTH the shorter right field distances and the "lefty righty" advantage that left handed hitters receive. it's COMPLETELY WORTHLESS. Unless you compare a right handed hitter to another right hander and vicey versey.
A fair point and one I agree with when it comes to park factors. Ex: Tiger Stadium was a pitcher's park for right-handed hitters. Not so much for lefties.
Anyone come up with another player with a 10 year "peak" like Gil's? Played in 98% off his teams games, 30 HR every year 100 RBI and BB every year? Only Lou Gehrig?
Well, in his best 10-year streak, Hodges hit 30 homers only 60% of the time and 100 BB only 10% of the time so...
Albert Pujols, on the other hand, actually DID hit 30 homers every year for 10 straight, actually DID get 100 RBI all 10 years, 100 BB three times (and 92, 97, & 99 in other years) while playing 96% of his team's games. He also won a Gold Glove, stole double digit bases three times, won a batting title, and hit over .300 all 10 of those years.
I'll take Albert's 10-year streak
I don't think Hodges would be a detriment to the Hall but, at the end of the day, he's a guy who finished as high as 7th in the MVP race exactly once. Clearly, he wasn't THAT highly thought-of at the time.
@daltex said:
OK. Here is the list of first basemen who have higher JAWS than Hodges and are not HOFers.
Albert Pujols
Miguel Cabrerra
Rafael Palmeiro
Todd Helton
Joey Votto
Mark McGwire
Keith Hernandez
John Olerud
Jason Giambi
Will Clark
David Ortiz
Mark Teixeira
Fred McGriff
Norm Cash
Dolph Camilli
Paul Goldschmidt
I don't know about you, but there are not a lot of names on that list that scream "HOFer" to me, but few of them are demonstrably worse than Hodges. Still, if you are going to say that 21 first basemen aren't enough, this is the list I would start to pick from. A short (95th of all time) and undistinguished (.467 winning percentage) managerial career punctuated by one (rightly) celebrated World Series doesn't enhance his resume one bit.
Why list players who are still playing or just retired?
Why list juicers?
LOTS of 1st baseman are GREAT hitters. Several on the above list are better than Hodges and some are not as good.
If you want about 100 guys total in the hall your'e too late.
Hodges' total accomplishments offensively, defensively. as a manager. as a sportsman add up to a HOFer to me.
Let's see. Of the players on my list seven are not yet eligible, and two others are difficult cases due to suspected PED. Ortiz goes on both lists. My point is that unless you want to induct all fifteen of my players, you have to make a case for why Hodges is more deserving. Who on my list is not as good? Hodges isn't competing with Cooper and Powell, but rather the above fifteen.
I value Gold Glove only slightly higher than fielding percentage. Can we agree that first base is the position where the range from minimally acceptable fielding to excellent fielding matters least?
Offensively: great for a shortstop, nothing special for a first baseman. Defensively, your only evidence is anecdotal. Baseball reference has him a a minus fielder in dWAR. You're free to disagree, but have provided no reasons for anyone else to believe he's an all-time great. Mazeroski was considered an all-time great at second (not third) where defense is MUCH more important. Big difference between "best of his era" and "best all-time". Managerial careen was short (95th of all time) and undistinguished (235th winning percentage of those who managed more than two full seasons). I'll grant you "sportsman" only because I haven't dug deep trying to refute it.
So we have anecdotally good defense at first and anecdotally good sportsman. I'd accept that as a reason to push a marginal candidate over the top. Hodges isn't that close. Do you really want to induct every first baseman better than George Kelly? I mean it's OK if you believe that Travis Hafner, Tino Martinez, and Mo Vaughan have been wrongfully omitted, but I think you'll find yourself awfully lonely.
I kind of figured you were educated. I (obviously) am not. I have just been using (simple) math on a daily basis in my occupations for about 44 years. I try to "boil out" the B.S. and use what is actually meaningful.
I dunno about educated
Humble too? :-)
One of the things OPS+ assumes is that all the players in the comparison groups other than our subjects are equal, or so it looks like to me.
It compares a player against all other players for a given season. The goal of OPS+ is to calculate how well a given player, in a given year, performed in comparison to an average player.
Average ignores one players playing every day as being "better" than, say the other guy playing part of the time. A batter who doesn't get enough ABs won't be considered for a batting title. OPS+ (imo) should deduct for games missed.
Hodges supposedly played in an era where it was easier to hit for a high OPS, so his OPS+ number gets reduced in the final computation.
Not exactly. He hit in an era where it was easier to hit in general. So what looks like an unbelievable season might not translate quite as well in terms of OPS+ because EVERYBODY was hitting better. Kinda like how hitting .300 in the National League in 1930 was no big deal since the entire league hit .303 for the year.
How about Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial and Willie Mays? Might they effect the numbers a bit? Any players in the 1970's as dominant as they were? Also there might be some guys who were playing in the 1970's (lots more players overall) who completely SUCKED.
In a given season in the 1950s, there were approximately 95000 plate appearances across all players. Your four guys would account for maybe 2600 of those or about 2.7%. Their cumulative input into the league OBP and SLG used to calculate OPS+ isn't going to have that huge of an effect. Four guys with OBPs of .400 instead of .340 just isn't going to change the league OBP all that much.
No, but those four guys might just be one part of it. In the 1970's there might have been a lot of really crappy guys too. If 4 guys can effect the total number by nearly 3%, what if 10 guys REALLY sucked in the '70's that only made the Majors because of there being more players in MLB? Would it be that hard to change the % by 7% on the bottom to go along with the 2.7% off the top making the number 10% off?
I don't know how to put this into a formula, but maybe it WASN'T actually as hard to hit for a high OPS in the 1970's, maybe they just weren't as good? OPS+ says they WERE just as good, but because they weren't hitting as high of numbers as a group we are going to reduce the OPS+ numbers of the guys from the 1950's.
Did I get that right?
Basically. For a truly mega-superstar to hit for a higher OPS+ in the mid-70s, yes, it would be easier, simply because hitting in general was so much harder in the mid-70s. However...hitting was a lot harder in the mid-70s. It all cancels itself out.
I get it, but couldn't you also say that hitting was the same, the players were just not as good? Or there was a big influx of average players and some real bad ones, and be just as proven as a theory?
I did a quick check on 5 guys who were great hitters in the 1970's Reggie, Rice, Brett, Carew and Yaz. Together they hit for an OPS of above 1.0 two times in the entire decade. Was it harder to hit or were they just not as good a group as Williams Mantle Musial etc.?
Both. Don't think you'll find anybody arguing those guys were as good as Williams, Mantle & Musial. But it was also a lot harder to hit in general.
In fact, I submit that it is impossible for both decades to have EXACTLY comparable players. WAY too many variables.
Nobody makes the claim that the decades have exactly comparable players.
Seems to me some of the guys think so. Way back in the dark ages when I was in school, to figure a fair comparison, you threw out the top and bottom numbers and figured the rest from there. Isn't that kind of thought process considered correct any longer. Remember I am OLD and probably have senility AND dementia as well.
Finally, my absolute favorite "Park Factor". If it's not adjusted to compensate for BOTH the shorter right field distances and the "lefty righty" advantage that left handed hitters receive. it's COMPLETELY WORTHLESS. Unless you compare a right handed hitter to another right hander and vicey versey.
A fair point and one I agree with when it comes to park factors. Ex: Tiger Stadium was a pitcher's park for right-handed hitters. Not so much for lefties.
Thank you.
Anyone come up with another player with a 10 year "peak" like Gil's? Played in 98% off his teams games, 30 HR every year 100 RBI and BB every year? Only Lou Gehrig?
Well, in his best 10-year streak, Hodges hit 30 homers only 60% of the time and 100 BB only 10% of the time so...
He averaged 30 HR didn't he? Never hit below 22.
Albert Pujols, on the other hand, actually DID hit 30 homers every year for 10 straight, actually DID get 100 RBI all 10 years, 100 BB three times (and 92, 97, & 99 in other years) while playing 96% of his team's games. He also won a Gold Glove, stole double digit bases three times, won a batting title, and hit over .300 all 10 of those years.
I'll take Albert's 10-year streak
Absolutely!
I did make an error in looking at Hodges' RBI numbers Probably had a few too many tabs open at the same time.
Puhols and Gehrig both had better ten year "peaks" than Gil at 1B. Couple of HOFers right there! No, Gil wasn't nearly as good as either of them, but that 10 (11) years stretch was impressive.
I don't think Hodges would be a detriment to the Hall but, at the end of the day, he's a guy who finished as high as 7th in the MVP race exactly once. Clearly, he wasn't THAT highly thought-of at the time.
Point taken.
If he would have hit in the 1970's he might have won a couple. Funny how Powell would have been so much better in Hodges' time, but Hodges might have been a top player in Powell's?
Hodges gets hurt because he had several of the all time greats playing at the same time. Powell gets rewarded because his competition was guys like Yaz, FRobby, Killebrew, Carew and Reggie? Frank Robinson was the only one I would rate anywhere near the "All-Time Great" category.
Hard to win MVP's against the guys he competed against. Musial and Mays prolly should have won it MORE times. Add in Kiner, Robinson, Snyder, Aaron, Banks and Mathews with FRobby coming along, and Gil is not going to win any MVP's. Gil never had that monster year, he never had a below average one either for 10-11 years.
Eliminate pitchers and he's in the top 5 just about every year for that decade. Not elite.....just below, every year.
Not so much late in the decade.
I looked and there were about 3 years in the 1950's that I can't find a good argument against the MVP chosen. 1954 they got it right 58 and 59 were fine. Musial got screwed early and often!
Powell won a MVP when there were several guys who were better that year. Yaz was quite a bit better that year. Oliva, Harper and Fregosi looked better too, Killebrew about equal. Sal Bando? Reggie Smith? Roy White? Jim Palmer? Oops he's a pitcher.
Bottom line for me here is Hodges offensive numbers alone don't get him in. They do get him very close.
I give him "extra" credit for 2 years missed, for that 11 year period of excellence (not one down year) while missing almost no games (in 1959 he did miss 40), being a tremendous defensive player and being a wonderful sportsman. As a slight plus (the cherry on top if you will) he won a WS as a manager.
He excelled in every area that is a criteria for induction. That puts him easily in for me. I can't prove it with numbers though. :-(
Numbers are a huge part of baseball. For me it's that.......and a lot more.
BANZAI+ ;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@daltex said:
OK. Here is the list of first basemen who have higher JAWS than Hodges and are not HOFers.
Albert Pujols
Miguel Cabrerra
Rafael Palmeiro
Todd Helton
Joey Votto
Mark McGwire
Keith Hernandez
John Olerud
Jason Giambi
Will Clark
David Ortiz
Mark Teixeira
Fred McGriff
Norm Cash
Dolph Camilli
Paul Goldschmidt
I don't know about you, but there are not a lot of names on that list that scream "HOFer" to me, but few of them are demonstrably worse than Hodges. Still, if you are going to say that 21 first basemen aren't enough, this is the list I would start to pick from. A short (95th of all time) and undistinguished (.467 winning percentage) managerial career punctuated by one (rightly) celebrated World Series doesn't enhance his resume one bit.
Why list players who are still playing or just retired?
Why list juicers?
LOTS of 1st baseman are GREAT hitters. Several on the above list are better than Hodges and some are not as good.
If you want about 100 guys total in the hall your'e too late.
Hodges' total accomplishments offensively, defensively. as a manager. as a sportsman add up to a HOFer to me.
Let's see. Of the players on my list seven are not yet eligible, and two others are difficult cases due to suspected PED. Ortiz goes on both lists. My point is that unless you want to induct all fifteen of my players, you have to make a case for why Hodges is more deserving. Who on my list is not as good? Hodges isn't competing with Cooper and Powell, but rather the above fifteen.
I value Gold Glove only slightly higher than fielding percentage. Can we agree that first base is the position where the range from minimally acceptable fielding to excellent fielding matters least?
Offensively: great for a shortstop, nothing special for a first baseman. Defensively, your only evidence is anecdotal. Baseball reference has him a a minus fielder in dWAR. You're free to disagree, but have provided no reasons for anyone else to believe he's an all-time great. Mazeroski was considered an all-time great at second (not third) where defense is MUCH more important. Big difference between "best of his era" and "best all-time". Managerial careen was short (95th of all time) and undistinguished (235th winning percentage of those who managed more than two full seasons). I'll grant you "sportsman" only because I haven't dug deep trying to refute it.
So we have anecdotally good defense at first and anecdotally good sportsman. I'd accept that as a reason to push a marginal candidate over the top. Hodges isn't that close. Do you really want to induct every first baseman better than George Kelly? I mean it's OK if you believe that Travis Hafner, Tino Martinez, and Mo Vaughan have been wrongfully omitted, but I think you'll find yourself awfully lonely.
No good numbers associated with Defense. None at all with sportmanship. Two of the areas I value have no meaning to you, so I understand your argument completely.
I am not going to take the time to see if Olerud belongs based on your "one number" list, (actually I did , why I don't know, he had 8 years he played every day and was very good, a bit below Gil though) but most of those guys will get in or should get in, if not cheaters. Hard to tell how good the cheaters actually were, so leaving them out, as well as guys not eligible (let's wait and see until then and not put them in quite yet) your list could be as low as 7. ALL great hitters. So they all qualify in ONE respect. Some had pretty short careers, some might have been poor defenders.
Hernandez should be in imo.
Please see if you can find some other obscure 1st basemen who obviously fall short of HOF consideration. I will look at Mo Vaughn (for no particular reason) GREAT hitter! 5 out of 6 years plenty good enough years, 10 year career, 1991 and 2003 are not years, that's not enough.
This is incredibly simple, do it yourself and come up with sensible guys to compare him to, certainly NOT current players, cetainly NOT cheaters.
Puhols and Cabrerra will waltz in though. Deservedly so.
A lot of guys playing 1st are/were great hitters so a lot of them will be in the HOF as opposed to 2nd base guys. I didn't know there was a positional limit.
I get it, you don't like Gil enough, you're not convinced, you never will be, because there's not a number that is high enough for you. That's fine.
I disagree.
That's fine too.
Edited to add; Thanks at least for backing me up on Cooper and Powell.........two more guys who were NOT as good as Gil.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I am not going to take the time to see if Olerud belongs based on your "one number" list, (actually I did , why I don't know, he had 8 years he played every day and was very good, a bit below Gil though) but most of those guys will get in or should get in, if not cheaters. Hard to tell how good the cheaters actually were, so leaving them out, as well as guys not eligible (let's wait and see until then and not put them in quite yet) your list could be as low as 7. ALL great hitters. So they all qualify in ONE respect. Some had pretty short careers, some might have been poor defenders.
Hernandez should be in imo.
I don't really get the argument in favor of Hernandez but not Olerud. Hernandez is widely considered the best defensive first baseman of all-time. OK. That doesn't mean a whole lot to me, but we'll give it to him. Olerud is right there, however. All-time elite defensive 1B. dWAR doesn't reflect it but that stat stinks anyway. Where Olerud really shined was in eliminating throwing errors. 6'5" with a huge wingspan and a great ability to get down low and dig out throws.
Offensively, they were fairly similar guys but Olerud had a higher peak and more power. Hernandez did win an MVP (you could make a case for Winfield) but Olerud had a season where he led the league in OPS and OPS+, which Hernandez never did. He also hit .350 a second time, something Hernandez didn't do even once.
To me, it boils down to - is John Olerud a HOF'er? Most people would say no. If he's not, Hernandez isn't either.
@JoeBanzai said:
Average ignores one players playing every day as being "better" than, say the other guy playing part of the time. A batter who doesn't get enough ABs won't be considered for a batting title. OPS+ (imo) should deduct for games missed.
OPS+ "titles" take into consideration plate appearances, same as the batting title. It's just not an officially recognized title like batting average is.
Just like no one takes points off a guy's batting average for playing 130 games instead of 150, people won't do that with OPS+. It's a rate state as I explained before.
No, but those four guys might just be one part of it. In the 1970's there might have been a lot of really crappy guys too. If 4 guys can effect the total number by nearly 3%, what if 10 guys REALLY sucked in the '70's that only made the Majors because of there being more players in MLB? Would it be that hard to change the % by 7% on the bottom to go along with the 2.7% off the top making the number 10% off?
They don't impact the total number by nearly 3%. They make up 3% of the total number but their actual impact is the difference between their numbers and what replacements, or average players, would put up in the same number of PAs. Say those four guys combined for 150 homers and that was 3% of the total for the year (both numbers completely made up). Now take them out and put in four other guys. Those four other guys are probably going to hit, what? 70 homers? Maybe 80? Let's go with 70. Then the effect of the original four guys is actually 80 homers not 150 since that's what they contributed over and above "normal" guys.
Seems to me some of the guys think so. Way back in the dark ages when I was in school, to figure a fair comparison, you threw out the top and bottom numbers and figured the rest from there. Isn't that kind of thought process considered correct any longer. Remember I am OLD and probably have senility AND dementia as well.
Well, there are lots of ways to do averages and comparisons. Throwing out the extremes is one way.
Anyone come up with another player with a 10 year "peak" like Gil's? Played in 98% off his teams games, 30 HR every year 100 RBI and BB every year? Only Lou Gehrig?
Well, in his best 10-year streak, Hodges hit 30 homers only 60% of the time and 100 BB only 10% of the time so...
He averaged 30 HR didn't he? Never hit below 22.
Averaging 30 homers and "30 HR every year" are not the same thing. You said "30 HR every year" when, in fact, he reached that number only 60% of the time.
Hodges gets hurt because he had several of the all time greats playing at the same time. Powell gets rewarded because his competition was guys like Yaz, FRobby, Killebrew, Carew and Reggie? Frank Robinson was the only one I would rate anywhere near the "All-Time Great" category.
Hard to win MVP's against the guys he competed against. Musial and Mays prolly should have won it MORE times. Add in Kiner, Robinson, Snyder, Aaron, Banks and Mathews with FRobby coming along, and Gil is not going to win any MVP's. Gil never had that monster year, he never had a below average one either for 10-11 years.
A fair point. When your competition is Aaron & Mays, good luck. Then again, those two didn't win three MVPs in the 50s. Roy Campanella did. Campy was an amazing player but he's not in the Aaron/Mays stratosphere either yet, somehow, he managed three MVPs.
Powell won a MVP when there were several guys who were better that year. Yaz was quite a bit better that year. Oliva, Harper and Fregosi looked better too, Killebrew about equal. Sal Bando? Reggie Smith? Roy White? Jim Palmer? Oops he's a pitcher.
Being on a winning team has benefits in MVP voting
I give him "extra" credit for 2 years missed, for that 11 year period of excellence (not one down year) while missing almost no games (in 1959 he did miss 40), being a tremendous defensive player and being a wonderful sportsman. As a slight plus (the cherry on top if you will) he won a WS as a manager.
Yeah, see, I don't give guys credit for stuff they didn't do. Hodges didn't play those two years so he gets no credit. Sure it wasn't his "fault" he didn't play but...he didn't. Maybe he gets hurt playing those two years and never does anything? We don't know. Just like you wouldn't punish him for something that didn't happen, you shouldn't credit him either.
He excelled in every area that is a criteria for induction. That puts him easily in for me. I can't prove it with numbers though. :-(
Hodges saw his numbers go in the tank when the Dodgers went west. This despite the fact that their home park had a 251-foot fence in LF. Yeah, they put up a net/fence. You'd think Hodges would either have a lot of homers because the fence is so short or a lot of doubles because the fence was so high. He did neither.
By not doing well in LA, Hodges was seen as a product of Ebbets Field, which knocked him down in HOF voting. You can argue whether that's correct or fair but it's definitely a factor.
Joebanzi
some have already pointed it out, and I have explained it on here a million times...OPS+ can only be misleading when the comparing players have a big difference in plate appearances, or when one sits on the bench for unfavorable matchups(The Ken Phelps factor). When those factors are EVEN, then OPS+ is among the pinnacle of hitting measurements. There are however factors from the era one played in that can be misleading...just like it is misleading for all stats.
Ken Phelps is the extreme, hence the name "Ken Phelps factor."
Ken Phelps has a lifetime OPS+ of 132, as good or better as some of the best HOF hitters from his era.
THat does not mean OPS+ is flawed, and it also does not mean Ken Phelps was anywhere as good as Eddie Murray, George Brett, Dave Winfield, or Jim Rice.
Ken Phelps only had 2,200 lifetime plate appearances and he only played vs Righties and he only played when he was in the prime of his career. If one understands baseball that needs no further explanation.
For anyone that doesn't understand that by now, I probably give up....but then I will give one last ditch effort to avoid throwing in the towel in disbelief, and we will use Batting Average as the example.
Terry Forster has a lifetime batting average of .397. Joebanzi and 1970's, based on your philosophy and words, one can only draw two conclusions from the fact that Terry Forster has a lifetime batting average of .397:
1) Based on your words, that makes Forster a better hitter than Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and almost anybody else because he out hits him them in the all important stat of Batting Average.
or
2) Based on your words, that makes batting average a flawed stat because it says he is a better hitter than Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and almost anybody else because he out hits them all.
Soooo, either use this as an example to stop saying OPS+ is flawed for the reasons YOU are giving......OR....start using those same reasons and never mention batting average again.
@JoeBanzai said:
Average ignores one players playing every day as being "better" than, say the other guy playing part of the time. A batter who doesn't get enough ABs won't be considered for a batting title. OPS+ (imo) should deduct for games missed.
OPS+ "titles" take into consideration plate appearances, same as the batting title. It's just not an officially recognized title like batting average is.
Just like no one takes points off a guy's batting average for playing 130 games instead of 150, people won't do that with OPS+. It's a rate state as I explained before.
No, but those four guys might just be one part of it. In the 1970's there might have been a lot of really crappy guys too. If 4 guys can effect the total number by nearly 3%, what if 10 guys REALLY sucked in the '70's that only made the Majors because of there being more players in MLB? Would it be that hard to change the % by 7% on the bottom to go along with the 2.7% off the top making the number 10% off?
They don't impact the total number by nearly 3%. They make up 3% of the total number but their actual impact is the difference between their numbers and what replacements, or average players, would put up in the same number of PAs. Say those four guys combined for 150 homers and that was 3% of the total for the year (both numbers completely made up). Now take them out and put in four other guys. Those four other guys are probably going to hit, what? 70 homers? Maybe 80? Let's go with 70. Then the effect of the original four guys is actually 80 homers not 150 since that's what they contributed over and above "normal" guys.
Seems to me some of the guys think so. Way back in the dark ages when I was in school, to figure a fair comparison, you threw out the top and bottom numbers and figured the rest from there. Isn't that kind of thought process considered correct any longer. Remember I am OLD and probably have senility AND dementia as well.
Well, there are lots of ways to do averages and comparisons. Throwing out the extremes is one way.
Anyone come up with another player with a 10 year "peak" like Gil's? Played in 98% off his teams games, 30 HR every year 100 RBI and BB every year? Only Lou Gehrig?
Well, in his best 10-year streak, Hodges hit 30 homers only 60% of the time and 100 BB only 10% of the time so...
He averaged 30 HR didn't he? Never hit below 22.
Averaging 30 homers and "30 HR every year" are not the same thing. You said "30 HR every year" when, in fact, he reached that number only 60% of the time.
Hodges gets hurt because he had several of the all time greats playing at the same time. Powell gets rewarded because his competition was guys like Yaz, FRobby, Killebrew, Carew and Reggie? Frank Robinson was the only one I would rate anywhere near the "All-Time Great" category.
Hard to win MVP's against the guys he competed against. Musial and Mays prolly should have won it MORE times. Add in Kiner, Robinson, Snyder, Aaron, Banks and Mathews with FRobby coming along, and Gil is not going to win any MVP's. Gil never had that monster year, he never had a below average one either for 10-11 years.
A fair point. When your competition is Aaron & Mays, good luck. Then again, those two didn't win three MVPs in the 50s. Roy Campanella did. Campy was an amazing player but he's not in the Aaron/Mays stratosphere either yet, somehow, he managed three MVPs.
Powell won a MVP when there were several guys who were better that year. Yaz was quite a bit better that year. Oliva, Harper and Fregosi looked better too, Killebrew about equal. Sal Bando? Reggie Smith? Roy White? Jim Palmer? Oops he's a pitcher.
Being on a winning team has benefits in MVP voting
I give him "extra" credit for 2 years missed, for that 11 year period of excellence (not one down year) while missing almost no games (in 1959 he did miss 40), being a tremendous defensive player and being a wonderful sportsman. As a slight plus (the cherry on top if you will) he won a WS as a manager.
Yeah, see, I don't give guys credit for stuff they didn't do. Hodges didn't play those two years so he gets no credit. Sure it wasn't his "fault" he didn't play but...he didn't. Maybe he gets hurt playing those two years and never does anything? We don't know. Just like you wouldn't punish him for something that didn't happen, you shouldn't credit him either.
He excelled in every area that is a criteria for induction. That puts him easily in for me. I can't prove it with numbers though. :-(
Hodges saw his numbers go in the tank when the Dodgers went west. This despite the fact that their home park had a 251-foot fence in LF. Yeah, they put up a net/fence. You'd think Hodges would either have a lot of homers because the fence is so short or a lot of doubles because the fence was so high. He did neither.
By not doing well in LA, Hodges was seen as a product of Ebbets Field, which knocked him down in HOF voting. You can argue whether that's correct or fair but it's definitely a factor.
A pleasure debating with you. My mom always said I should have stayed in school.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Skin2 said:
Joebanzi
some have already pointed it out, and I have explained it on here a million times...OPS+ can only be misleading when the comparing players have a big difference in plate appearances, or when one sits on the bench for unfavorable matchups(The Ken Phelps factor). When those factors are EVEN, then OPS+ is among the pinnacle of hitting measurements. There are however factors from the era one played in that can be misleading...just like it is misleading for all stats.
Ken Phelps is the extreme, hence the name "Ken Phelps factor."
Ken Phelps has a lifetime OPS+ of 132, as good or better as some of the best HOF hitters from his era.
THat does not mean OPS+ is flawed, and it also does not mean Ken Phelps was anywhere as good as Eddie Murray, George Brett, Dave Winfield, or Jim Rice.
Ken Phelps only had 2,200 lifetime plate appearances and he only played vs Righties and he only played when he was in the prime of his career. If one understands baseball that needs no further explanation.
For anyone that doesn't understand that by now, I probably give up....but then I will give one last ditch effort to avoid throwing in the towel in disbelief, and we will use Batting Average as the example.
Terry Forster has a lifetime batting average of .397. Joebanzi and 1970's, based on your philosophy and words, one can only draw two conclusions from the fact that Terry Forster has a lifetime batting average of .397:
1) Based on your words, that makes Forster a better hitter than Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and almost anybody else because he out hits him them in the all important stat of Batting Average.
or
2) Based on your words, that makes batting average a flawed stat because it says he is a better hitter than Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and almost anybody else because he out hits them all.
Soooo, either use this as an example to stop saying OPS+ is flawed for the reasons YOU are giving......OR....start using those same reasons and never mention batting average again.
No, I wouldn't say Terry Forster was a better hitter than those guys.
Exactly the opposite of what I am saying. I guess I am really bad at trying to explain my thinking, so I won't try it with you any more here.
Hodges is in my HOF, Cooper and Powell aren't.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Seems Rocky Colavito should belong in your HOF too then. Curious to hear why he wouldn't. George Foster too.
Rocky was very good, a bit low on SLG a bit low on PA and OB%. 1958 was a nice year '61 was too. but it was for a lot of guys. I hear he had a cannon for an arm. Really only had an 11 yr career. Real nice run of years hitting HR. Best pitcher in the history of baseball LOL
Foster doesn't look quite as good to me, seems to be several years he missed a lot of time, 1976-78 were HOF type years.
If Colavito got in, it wouldn't bother me, he might get my vote, but he's a borderline guy imo, Foster a touch below, but still a fine player.
I followed the AL more than the NL, so other than just looking at numbers, I don't know much about Foster.
He had that one huge year and never really did anything close again, (or before). What happened 1971-73? He didn't play much. He was pretty good right up until the end. Should have walked more.
I'll bet the fans in Cincinnati think he should be in.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I went to a lot of effort looking at a group of first basemen that have been discussed here, and a few other contemporaries that struck me as potentially comparable to the others. And I bent over backward to penalize hitters for not playing as long as Hodges, and gave no extra credit for playing longer than Hodges (other than counting what they actually did in those extra years). The list below is, I think, as fair to Hodges as one could possibly be, and probably tilts a bit towards favoring Hodges unfairly. Fielding gets some weight, but we're talking about first base - it doesn't get much.
No ranking number because these are just random first basemen and there is a large class of players a whole lot better than the one's shown here, but in order, from best to worst:
Dick Allen
Will Clark
Keith Hernandez
John Olerud (just a hair behind Hernandez)
Boog Powell
Mark Grace
Dolph Camilli
Kent Hrbek
Bob Watson
Gil Hodges
Steve Garvey
Wally Joyner
Ted Kluszewski
Cecil Cooper
Bill White
A few notes:
The blank lines indicate groupings. Allen and Clark were of similar value, Hernandez, Olerud, and Powell, were of similar value but markedly less than Allen and Clark, etc. I used a formula to create the ranking order shown, but all names within a grouping are close enough that the order within that grouping doesn't really matter.
I included WPA to take clutch hitting into account, and that's what dropped Cooper down. Having viewed a more complete picture, I agree that Hodges was better.
For the players with shorter careers than Hodges, I adjusted their stats to get them up to the same number of plate appearances as Hodges, and assumed not that they were average over those added games, but terrible over those added games.
I looked only at career value, and ignored peak. This favors Hodges, who had no real peak - just consistency, a great deal.
The building block stats that went into this ranking are WPA, Batter Runs, Win Shares and plate appearances. (i.e., don't complain about OPS+, it's not in here).
The adjustment made to normalize career length to be at least as long as Hodges: I assumed that for each 500 PA added, the player would have a WPA of -3, Batter Runs of -3, and zero win shares.
The final order is based on the harmonic mean of the players Win Shares, adjusted Batter Runs, and adjusted WPA *10.
Having now done all the research and analysis I think I can do, I will officially let this go.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I was wondering why I didn't notice Allen on my Baseball Reference list. For some reason it lists him as a third baseman even though he played ~900 innings more at first. Any idea why?
@daltex said:
I was wondering why I didn't notice Allen on my Baseball Reference list. For some reason it lists him as a third baseman even though he played ~900 innings more at first. Any idea why?
I noticed that too. More complete games at third? It's a stretch, but he seems to have played more of his career at third and moved to first in '69, (back at third a bit more in 71) but he of course had many more appearances at first.
Looks to me like he was a 3B guy for 7 years and a 1B for 8. He did come up as a 3B.
Could the player have any input here?
Killebrew played all over too. You could claim he was primarily a 3B until 1971 (with 3 years in LF thrown in) so most of his career (kind of) he was more known for 3B. However he gets listed as a 1B. He should have stayed at third until '71.
Good question. How is it determined?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Seems Rocky Colavito should belong in your HOF too then. Curious to hear why he wouldn't. George Foster too.
Rocky was very good, a bit low on SLG a bit low on PA and OB%. 1958 was a nice year '61 was too. but it was for a lot of guys. I hear he had a cannon for an arm. Really only had an 11 yr career. Real nice run of years hitting HR. Best pitcher in the history of baseball LOL
Foster doesn't look quite as good to me, seems to be several years he missed a lot of time, 1976-78 were HOF type years.
If Colavito got in, it wouldn't bother me, he might get my vote, but he's a borderline guy imo, Foster a touch below, but still a fine player.
I followed the AL more than the NL, so other than just looking at numbers, I don't know much about Foster.
He had that one huge year and never really did anything close again, (or before). What happened 1971-73? He didn't play much. He was pretty good right up until the end. Should have walked more.
I'll bet the fans in Cincinnati think he should be in.
Foster had Pete Rose blocking his way those early years in.
He did quite a bit more than just 1977. From 1975-1981 his OPS+ was 149. His 162 per game average was 38 HR and 126 RBI. His actual average was 138 games per year, 32HR and 107 RBI.
1981 strike was part of the reason his missed games, 1979 had an injury, and 1975 he had to earn his way into a stacked lineup.
But part of that initial premise was that Hodges was the best first baseman of the 1950's, and thus should be in the HOF.
As of now, I don't think it can be refuted about him being the best first baseman of the 1950s....unless you start assembling a team and then just say, "Stan Musial will play first base, etc..."
But for actual position played, Hodges still reigns king as top first baseman of 1950's.
@Skin2 said:
But part of that initial premise was that Hodges was the best first baseman of the 1950's, and thus should be in the HOF.
As of now, I don't think it can be refuted about him being the best first baseman of the 1950s....unless you start assembling a team and then just say, "Stan Musial will play first base, etc..."
But for actual position played, Hodges still reigns king as top first baseman of 1950's.
Sooo...is that enough?
Just to be clear, when we say Hodges was the best first baseman of the 1950's, that is an accident of the calendar. Several much better first basemen played during the decade, but not in each year from 1950-1959. So, we're arbitrarily picking 10-year periods that begin in years evenly divisible by 10, and asking if the best over those periods deserve consideration not given to the best at a position from, say, 1946 to 1955 (best 1B = Mickey Vernon). Um, I vote no.
By the same measure, the best SS of the 1970's was Bert Campaneris. I'd prefer to see Campy in the HOF to Hodges, but I think it's a stretch to say he deserves it.
The best third baseman of the 1950's was .... Ed Yost. Anyone want to make his HOF case?
The best catcher of the 1960's was Joe Torre. I do think he deserved to be in the HOF as a player, but I wouldn't have thought so except for what he accomplished in the 1970's playing other positions. But the question appears to be, would Torre have deserved to be in the HOF had he faded away shortly after the 60's ended and not won an MVP. I vote no, and I bet nobody wants to argue otherwise.
Bottom line, _________ was the best at his position for the decade of the ____'s is not nearly enough to make a HOF case.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Seems Rocky Colavito should belong in your HOF too then. Curious to hear why he wouldn't. George Foster too.
Rocky was very good, a bit low on SLG a bit low on PA and OB%. 1958 was a nice year '61 was too. but it was for a lot of guys. I hear he had a cannon for an arm. Really only had an 11 yr career. Real nice run of years hitting HR. Best pitcher in the history of baseball LOL
Foster doesn't look quite as good to me, seems to be several years he missed a lot of time, 1976-78 were HOF type years.
If Colavito got in, it wouldn't bother me, he might get my vote, but he's a borderline guy imo, Foster a touch below, but still a fine player.
I followed the AL more than the NL, so other than just looking at numbers, I don't know much about Foster.
He had that one huge year and never really did anything close again, (or before). What happened 1971-73? He didn't play much. He was pretty good right up until the end. Should have walked more.
I'll bet the fans in Cincinnati think he should be in.
Foster had Pete Rose blocking his way those early years in.
He did quite a bit more than just 1977. From 1975-1981 his OPS+ was 149. His 162 per game average was 38 HR and 126 RBI. His actual average was 138 games per year, 32HR and 107 RBI.
1981 strike was part of the reason his missed games, 1979 had an injury, and 1975 he had to earn his way into a stacked lineup.
What I meant was his 52 HR, that was an unusually high total for anyone at the time. Great RBI and SLG as well.
@Skin2 said:
But part of that initial premise was that Hodges was the best first baseman of the 1950's, and thus should be in the HOF.
As of now, I don't think it can be refuted about him being the best first baseman of the 1950s....unless you start assembling a team and then just say, "Stan Musial will play first base, etc..."
But for actual position played, Hodges still reigns king as top first baseman of 1950's.
Sooo...is that enough?
I think it's enough, or at least to get his "foot in the door" add the fact that he played almost every game, and (nobody but you and I seem to care) his legacy of sportsmanship and he's there for me easily. I think he was a good manager, he might have been better, but he died young, after a round of golf with Mets coaches Joe Pignatano, Rube Walker, and Eddie Yost.
He sure did a lot betwen fighting in WWll and dying young. Spent every day of his adult life playing or managing baseball.
From Wikipedia;
Jackie Robinson, told the Associated Press, "He was the core of the Brooklyn Dodgers.
Duke Snider said "Gil was a great player, but an even greater man." Johnny Podres; "I've never known a finer man."
When he retired after the 1963 season, he had hit the most home runs (370) ever by a right handed batter up to that point in time (surpassed by Willie Mays) and the most career Grand Slams (14) by a National League player (eclipsed by Willie McCovey). He shares the Major League record of having hit four home runs in a single game (Only 18 players have ever done so in MLB history).
Dallas' list of players better at 1B; Number after player is how many all-star games.
Dick Allen 7 Right handed hitter, 807 games at 1B, missed a lot of games, MUCH better hitter than Gil, attitude issues. No.
Will Clark 6 Left handed hitter, Not enough HR per AB, 2nd half of his career not as good and missed a lot of games. Yes
Keith Hernandez 5 Left handed hitter, Not enough HR per AB, SLG a little too low. Tie
John Olerud 2 Left handed hitter, Not enough HR per AB, nice 7 year run. VERY close but No/Maybe
Boog Powell 4 Left handed hitter, surprised at his lower SLG, lower JAWS and WAR than Gil. No
Mark Grace 3 Left handed hitter,Nice batting average, no power. No
Dolph Camilli 2 Left handed hitter, nice 7 year run, too short a career. No
Kent Hrbek 1 Left handed hitter, really surprised me, JAWS and WAR a lot lower than Gil. Almost a tie, Maybe.
Bob Watson 2 Right handed hitter, nice batting average, not as many games at 1B. No
Gil Hodges 8 Right handed hitter, best slugger of the bunch after Allen
All the players listed were great!
I didn't give anyone credit for games they didn't play and ignored Gil's "missing" years.
Obviously I think it's harder for Righties to hit HR but Gil hit them better than the Left handers. I like my 1B guy to hit HRs. I also like my guy to be an excellent fielder, I don't see how it matters if it's an "easier" position to play defense. He's got to have a good glove!
After looking at the numbers I wonder why Will Clark isn't in. 1994-97 Hurt a lot? .300 BA with a .497 SLG is an uncommon combination of excellence!
I wouldn't argue against several of these guys getting in HOF, Especially Clark and Hernandez, along with Gil.
Most surprised at Hrbek, better than I thought and I always liked him.
Surprised also that Mattingly didn't get mentioned, injuring his back seems to be what ruined a certain HOF career.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Skin2 said:
But part of that initial premise was that Hodges was the best first baseman of the 1950's, and thus should be in the HOF.
As of now, I don't think it can be refuted about him being the best first baseman of the 1950s....unless you start assembling a team and then just say, "Stan Musial will play first base, etc..."
But for actual position played, Hodges still reigns king as top first baseman of 1950's.
Sooo...is that enough?
Just to be clear, when we say Hodges was the best first baseman of the 1950's, that is an accident of the calendar. Several much better first basemen played during the decade, but not in each year from 1950-1959. So, we're arbitrarily picking 10-year periods that begin in years evenly divisible by 10, and asking if the best over those periods deserve consideration not given to the best at a position from, say, 1946 to 1955 (best 1B = Mickey Vernon). Um, I vote no.
By the same measure, the best SS of the 1970's was Bert Campaneris. I'd prefer to see Campy in the HOF to Hodges, but I think it's a stretch to say he deserves it.
The best third baseman of the 1950's was .... Ed Yost. Anyone want to make his HOF case?
The best catcher of the 1960's was Joe Torre. I do think he deserved to be in the HOF as a player, but I wouldn't have thought so except for what he accomplished in the 1970's playing other positions. But the question appears to be, would Torre have deserved to be in the HOF had he faded away shortly after the 60's ended and not won an MVP. I vote no, and I bet nobody wants to argue otherwise.
Bottom line, _________ was the best at his position for the decade of the ____'s is not nearly enough to make a HOF case.
Comments
None will get in.
Sorry Gil.
Seems that the qualifications for character and sportsmanship are only used against players and never for them. If guys like Dale Murphy had those qualifications used in his favor, then in addition to his borderline statistical candidacy, he would be a lock.
I personally would like to see someone get recognized for their on the field character and sportsmanship contributions.
Well, after all the debating, what does daltex think?
Hodges, in or out?
Out. Not on my list (more a concept than a list) of twenty biggest omissions.
Banzi, you often cite how the writers felt who followed him...and if you go by that, he only had two finishes in the top ten in MVP voting, finishing 7th and 8th as his best. That isn't good enough for a guy who was washed up after age 35.
His best OPS+ finishes were 6,6,8, and 8. Again, not dominant enough for a guy who was washed up earlier than a typical HOFer.
Dale Murphy has a better case than Hodges, and if you go by the premise, 'best at his position in the decade,' then Murphy has that too, and probably a lot of other players throughout history who can claim they were the best at their position for ten years...and are still not worthy of the HOF.
I wouldn't run and give Hodges too much credit for missed military time. His age 23/24 seasons he had .237/.307.360. With some seasoning at age 21/22 in MLB(the years he missed), maybe that might have improved, or maybe he wasn't good enough to even play MLB at age 21....since at age 24 he was not that good. So maybe, maybe not.
I am not quoting writers.
I have biographies on most of the HOF ballplayers. Several were asked about Hodges and most felt he was good enough for the HOF, but overshadowed by some fantastic team mates. By the time they were all in, the voters had forgotten about him and were focused on the new group of guys.
He gets "punished" because there were no good 1st basemen during his time, so the claim he was best at his position gets eliminated, and at the same time punished because he played on a team with some of the best hitters of all time, and against guys like Williams, Mantle and Mays. Just because he wasn't as good as some of the best hitters of all time shouldn't exclude him.
OPS+ OPS+ OPS+ so tired of that flawed number. Even if you use it, it's still only one factor in rating a player.
Hodges hits it out of the park as a fielder, a sportsman, and I would say he was a pretty good manager too.
If his OPS+ number was higher, and he was a piece of you know what in EVERY other area, lots of guys would be in his corner. That is so wrong!
I just don't see an argument against the military time either. In '44 and 45 he was completely out of professional baseball.
Once back, he needed just one full year in the minors before being called up for good. Give him those two years (I could easily say one year in minors) in the minors and he gets 1946 as a rookie, I then assume he has a full '47 and '48 where he will most likely be very good, but you never can be sure.
I look at it more from an major league experience level than an age. He was mature enough to be a Marine, pro baseball couldn't have been that hard to figure out.
He could have had two MONSTER years in 1947 and '48 as well. I just figured they would be on par with 1949-59, that sure seams reasonable to me.
I also quoted several accomplishments that were better than LOTS of HOFers and stuff he did that was slightly below some of the all-time greats. A lot of those guys were cheaters and will get in the HOF someday. But not Gil. And many on these boards complain because the HOF is watered down, better that than when the cheaters get in.
Lots of guys in the hall were washed up by 35. Murphy was one of them. Foxx and Dimaggio were too. They were all probably better than Gil, he was still good enough.
He's still better imo than at least 25% of the guys in the HOF, I cited several 1st basemen that are in who were no where near as good as Gill, but played in eras where they stood out because of their poor competition and got in.
Murphy should be in as well.
My thoughts are some guys look at OPS+ (and Gils should be higher imo) and say "NO" without looking at the whole picture.
Doesn't matter though, I couldn't even sway the OP, so I must be wrong.
Sad that no one seems to care about integrity,class and sportsmanship.
Just keep ignoring what I say and keep slugging away with OPS+.
Banzi,
i actually enjoy you pointing out the integrity and sportsmanship.
I will concede the military aspect in your favor too. It certainly doesn't help to be away for two full years during those formative years. That could have been the difference of him hitting 400 home runs...and a few uptick in his percentages. At that time, that probably would have been enough for him to get voted into the HOF, as he was around 50% of the ballot a few times as it was.
PS. OPS+ is just one...and it is a quick easy one...but definitely not the only one. But for example, when one has an OPS+ of 110 and another of 140....and they have EQUAL legnth careers, there is no debate or wiggle room. The varrying career legnths and plate appearances(sitting vs lefties for example), alter OPS and OPS+ value....it also alters batting average too,and any other percentage measurement.
Linear weights, Batter Runs are more accurate. The Linear Weights and every on base situation, even more so. Those say the same thing as OPS+ in most cases, so there really isn't a need to go over every stat when they say the same thing most of the time.
Lifetime Batter RUns:
Hodges has 200
Mantle 859
McCovey 551
Duke Snider 410
Jim Rice 299
Kent Hrbk 256
Dave Parker 245
Dale Murphy 225
Andre Dawson 218
Don Baylor 217
Cecil Cooper 192
That gives a pretty good picture where Hodges fits in. Nowhere near the elite. He is right there with some borderline HOF players and some pretty good ones not in the Hall.
If you account for his military time, then maybe he gets up in the 250+ range. Add a little defensive value...yeah, then he may have a case. Add his sportsmanship characteristics, then one could at least make an argument.
I appreciate the aspects you brought up.
Your points are valid.
One of the things I don't like about OPS+ is that it can make a part time player look a lot better than a guy who shows up every day.
When comparing Powell and Cooper to Hodges in an earlier thread they had some great OPS+ numbers in years they played in less than a full year;
Powell had an OPS+ of over 125 every year 1971-75 and averaged 483 PA over that time. Not bad, but when a star player misses time it hurts the team.
Cecil Cooper's 1975 confounds me!
143 OPS+ here certainly looks a lot better than.........103 games played 14 HR and .355 OB%?!?!?!?!?!? This would seem to count as a full year in "career length". I look at it as a below average year for a player I was counting on to be a leader.
Rod Carew had a great year hitting as many HR, batting .349 and OB% .421 yet his OPS+ is just 14 points higher? OK?
Cooper's '75 was about equal "+" wise to Hodges' 1952 when Gil missed one game, hit 32 HR, drove in 102 walked 107 time and has a .386 OB%. Similar value? Well, I don't see it. AT ALL!
A lot of other guys must have done well in 1952 I guess to make that year of equal value to Cooper's '75. I will never see how one equals the other. I looked it up just to make sure 1975 was a full 162 game season not 110.
Funny, only two guys hit more HR in the NL than Gill in 1952 and they hit just 37. Gil was 4th in Adjusted Batting Wins and Runs, 4th in RBI 2nd in walks, 4th in OB% and SLG, a bunch of other top 10 categories, so he was great that year.
Cooper is nowhere in 1975.
Same OPS+
One final question regarding Hodges; Other than Lou Gehrig, has any player in history of MLB played in 98% of their teams games averaging 30 HR and 100RBI a season for 10 consecutive years AND playing gold glove quality defense?
Any even come close?
Let me know who come closest, if you look.
OPS+ is a rate statistic not a counting state. It's simply incorrect to use it to compare "value" when plate appearances/games are wildly different.
I am not sure what that means, but when two guys have a similar OPS+ people think it means they are the same.
That is completely false in this case. Hodges looks to be about the 5th best offensive player in 1952, Cooper not so much in 1975.
I get tired of being beaten about the head with this OPS+ garbage.
Lifetime, one guy has a big OPS advantage and the other guy is better with OPS+ and he was nowhere near as good.
You seem to be a math guy, please explain how Cecil Cooper can get a number like 143 in a year like he had in 1975. 145 seems like a HOF type number that was NOT a HOF type year.
It drives me crazy when it's said Cooper was the exact same hitter as Hodges.
Same thing (sort of) when you look at 162 game averages. If both players didn't play close to the same percentage of games per season the guy who missed a lot of games will look a LOT better than he actually was, assuming he was pretty good.
We usually argue about very good players. When a good player misses a game a much poorer player usually replaces him, so guys that perform well and play all the time should be rewarded for that, not punished.
Oh well. Happy 4th of July! Be careful and don't blow yourself up!!!!!
I'll give you Kelly and Bottomley. Beckley was actually pretty good, but it's hard to evaluate 19th century players. Too little data. I'll call Chance's playing career just about a push, but his managerial career was vastly superior. Anyway, an argument could be made that Chance is in the HOF because of a poem. It certainly eased the way for him.
Anyway, all this is beside the point. We can all agree that there are players in the HOF who don't deserve to be there. How many is a function of how big each of us believes the HOF should be. If you think players like Hodges and Mattingly belong your list will likely be shorter than those who think Trammell was a huge mistake. The point is if you're going to enshrine people just because they are better than George Kelly, or whoever, you should start with the best players that have been omitted. IMO Hodges isn't even close.
Other than 1970s, who makes this mistake all the time, I don't think anyone who is aware of OPS+ makes this mistake. OPS+ does an excellent job of capturing half of a hitter's value - it tells you how good a hitter he was. The other half is taking into account for how long the hitter was that good. For Hodges and Cooper, OPS+ is about the same, and the length of their careers is about the same. They were about the same. For Hodges and Powell the length of their careers is about the same, but Powell beats Hodges handily in OPS+ and every other stat (batter runs, WPA, Win Shares) that matters. Powell was better.
Cooper was somewhere between the 25th and 30th best hitter in the AL in 1975; Hodges about 5th in 1952. You can stop obsessing about OPS+ as a stand-alone ranking tool; nobody is using it that way.
If the guy with the higher OPS+ didn't play as long, then you're probably right. But if he did, you're probably wrong. But if you're talking about something besides career length here, then you need to explain how you determined that the player with the higher OPS+ was nowhere near as good as the player with the lower OPS+.
They were very similar hitters over the course of their careers, but Cooper's 1975 wasn't as good as his OPS+ alone indicates. First, because he only came to the plate 333 times, and second because a big reason why his PA was so low was that he was used as a DH mostly against RHP. Still, he wasn't that bad against lefties, and if he had faced the expected number of LHP his OPS+ would drop from 143 to 138, assuming he did as well against the extra lefties as he did against the ones he did face.
But Cooper's managers stopped holding him out against LHP soon after that, and the effect of those missing LHP at bats is too small to measure by the end of his career. Same for Hodges, who was only able to hang around as long as he did by facing mostly LHP and sitting against RHP in his last four seasons; it's a mark against his OPS+, but one that's too small to measure.
Rate stats are stuff like batting average - stuff that measures percentages rather than actual output. Batting average tells you often a guy gets hits but doesn't tell you how many. OPS+ measures how successful a hitter is but doesn't tell you anything about his actual output. That's why games played matters.
I am a math guy. Have a math degree.
In 1975, the AL as a whole had a .707 OPS. Cooper had an .899. OPS+ takes the ratios of OBP vs league OPB and SLG vs league SLG and then adds those together. Cooper's OBP was decent but nothing special. His SLG, though, was .544 - 44% above league average. Add it all together, mix in a downgrade because his numbers are inflated by Fenway and you get 143.
No, 143 isn't a HOF-type year - unless you have a ton of them (ex: Ken Griffey Jr had a career 136).
If Kent Hrbek was that good, then I wonder why he was only a 1-time all-star?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
FINALLY, a subject I consider myself an expert on!
In a word Don Mattingly.
Mattingly was a great player who had a few monster years 1984-87 and then hitting wise dropped off.
Hrbek never had that big year to get noticed but he was regarded as just as good defensively as Don. Don just collected his GG every year. Hrbek never led the league in any hitting category.
After '87 Hrbek was the better hitter and even though the Twins won championships in '87 and '91, Puckett was the marquee guy and Kent was considered the "contributor"
There was a LOT of talk here in Minnesota about how Mattingly was not deserving of the AS and GG every year.
If I remember correctly Kent even said he wouldn't go to another AS game at one point as he felt he was being snubbed.
The knock on Hrbek was that he wasn't always in superb condition and that he wasn't as dedicated as he should be "or he would be a HOFer for sure". He was kind of pudgy for much of his career.
Lifetime numbers are pretty similar. If you look at AS and GG. Mattingly is far superior.
They were all pretty good. Good catch on the poem. I didn't choose to bring that up.
If there was a group of players considered to be All-Time Greats and I was better than even one of them, I would feel like I "belonged".
If I was better than 10-25% of them and several at my position, I would be baffled.
I can see an objection to putting Hodges in, even though I would, but to say he isn't even close I can't agree with.
I kind of figured you were educated. I (obviously) am not. I have just been using (simple) math on a daily basis in my occupations for about 44 years. I try to "boil out" the B.S. and use what is actually meaningful.
One of the things OPS+ assumes is that all the players in the comparison groups other than our subjects are equal, or so it looks like to me.
Hodges supposedly played in an era where it was easier to hit for a high OPS, so his OPS+ number gets reduced in the final computation.
How about Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial and Willie Mays? Might they effect the numbers a bit? Any players in the 1970's as dominant as they were? Also there might be some guys who were playing in the 1970's (lots more players overall) who completely SUCKED.
I don't know how to put this into a formula, but maybe it WASN'T actually as hard to hit for a high OPS in the 1970's, maybe they just weren't as good? OPS+ says they WERE just as good, but because they weren't hitting as high of numbers as a group we are going to reduce the OPS+ numbers of the guys from the 1950's.
Did I get that right?
I did a quick check on 5 guys who were great hitters in the 1970's Reggie, Rice, Brett, Carew and Yaz. Together they hit for an OPS of above 1.0 two times in the entire decade. Was it harder to hit or were they just not as good a group as Williams Mantle Musial etc.?
In this case, I could make the claim that Hodges' numbers should be increased, not decreased. At the very least left alone.
In fact, I submit that it is impossible for both decades to have EXACTLY comparable players. WAY too many variables.
Finally, my absolute favorite "Park Factor". If it's not adjusted to compensate for BOTH the shorter right field distances and the "lefty righty" advantage that left handed hitters receive. it's COMPLETELY WORTHLESS. Unless you compare a right handed hitter to another right hander and vicey versey.
Both Powell and Cooper had a HUGE advantage in almost every ball park and against 66% or more of the pitchers they faced. I did check Memorial Stadium and it was one of the few parks with similar left and right fields, so Booger gets some extra consideration for his home park, but not on the road.
My simple mindedness says if player A has to hit the ball 350 feet to left to hit a HR and player B has to hit it 300 feet to right to hit a HR. Player A has to be better to hit a HR. No?
Oh well. Again I don't really care, but after looking at WAY too many players, I am even MORE convinced that Hodges is a sure fire absolute HOFer and anyone who can't see that he did a LOT more than needed, is looking at the wrong (or flawed) information.
Anyone come up with another player with a 10 year "peak" like Gil's? Played in 98% off his teams games, 30 HR every year 100 RBI and BB every year? Only Lou Gehrig?
BANZAI+ the new gold standard in HOF worthy evaluation. LOL
OPS+ about as good as BA in evaluating a player's ability.
At first I laughed at your joke, but then I couldn't help but wonder if you really were joking. BA is, of course, a small subset of OPS+. OPS+ measures what BA does, and then measures quite a bit more. Roughly, I'd say it's 10 times a better measure than BA. It is, by far, the best readily available rate stat, and once you have it there is truly no point to looking at any other.
And I've skimmed back through all of your posts and I don't see anywhere where you've acknowledged how much easier it was to get hits (of every kind) and to score and drive in runs in Ebbetts Field in the 1950's than it was in virtually any other ballpark at any other time. If you are denying that fact, then debate is pointless. If you do acknowledge that fact, then it would help a lot if you'd explain how you are taking that fact into account in your analysis.
We also seem to be stuck on the Tier III first baseman of Hodges, Cooper and Powell (and Dolf Camilli, Frank Chance, Bob Watson, and Steve Garvey, all of whom were pretty comparable players). I assume by your silence when I mentioned them that you agree that the Tier II guys, Dick Allen, Will Clark and Keith Hernandez, were head and shoulders better than the guys we're talking about. If you don't, I'll just sign off from the discussion, having no idea where to go from there.
I'm perfectly fine saying Kelly and Bottomley were mistakes. The HOF has a lot of mistakes. I don't believe that JAWS is a perfect stat, but it is a good place to start. There are 15 first basemen with a higher JAWS than Hodges who are NOT in the HOF. Some of them (Paul Goldschmidt, Mark McGwire) have very good reasons, but not being in the top 15 at his position not enshrined is "not even close" to being the best player missing out.
You can say this all you want, but I doubt you'll find many who will say "Anybody who was better than Candy Cummings belongs in." FWIW, I believe Cummings is the worst player in the HOF.
I was being a little sarcastic about OPS+ being about as good as BA, but it does completely ignore how much of a season is missed by a player. Even BA has a qualifying number of AB to be the batting champ, buy OPS+ gets shoved out there like it's much more than an average.
A guy plays well for 100 games and has the same OPS+ as a guy who plays 98% of his teams games does not mean they were both equal as hitters.
You say it yourself time and time again, so and so sat out against tough pitchers to make his numbers look better.
Garvey, Clark and Hernandez are very good players. Allen was a great slugger, but he just played "full time" for about 6-8 years he missed to many games to be in my HOF even though he was a fantastic hitter, probably the best hitter of the bunch, but that's not what we are discussing.
I don't respond to the Ebbets field comment just like you refuse to address the left handed batter advantage, which is the same thing, only more of an advantage for lefties. ALL their parks are easy to hit in.
You are the stat guy, where's your list of guys who had 10 year streaks playing in 98% of their teams games and averaging 30 HR 100 RBI and 100 Walks a year?
Come ON. Paul Goldschmidt! He's a current player and McGwire has the steroid thing against him. Dolf Camilli got mentioned somewhere for God sake.
JAWS does rate Hodges above Mattingly, Powell, Cooper, Grace, Watson. Pretty much ALL the guys brought up in comparison with Gil. Hernandez is quite a bit higher and I have said I think he should be in.
I don't see too many guys on the list above him that weren't HOF players.
And let's keep bringing up Candy Cummings!
And nobody is saying they are, so I don't know who you're arguing with here. To qualify for the OPS+ leaders a player also needs to have the same qualifying number of PA, so I don't even know what point you're trying to make.
Noting in passing that you still haven't answered the question whether Clark and Hernandez were better than Hodges (Garvey wasn't, he's just in the comparable group), let's focus on Allen. Yes, Allen's career was short(ish), about a season and a half shorter than Hodges. And yet in 800 or so fewer plate appearances, Allen compiled 68% more oWAR, 138% more batter runs, 80% more WPA and 29% more Win Shares (lower because Allen was a bad fielder). Allen could have batted 800 more times and literally struck out each and every time and still have an OPS+ of 131 and still destroy Hodges in every meaningful stat. To say that Allen was probably better than Hodges is to say that Wilt Chamberlain was probably taller than Spud Webb; it does not do justice to the chasm of hitting ability that separates the two.
Oh, but I did respond to your question, so I know that has nothing to do with why you are dodging my question. Yes, batting left-handed gives a person an advantage, in exactly the same way that being stronger or faster than other players does. My response to your question is, in essence, so what? Presented with a left-handed hitting Powell and a right-handed hitting Hodges, your position is that the Dodgers in the 1950's would have played Hodges. Simultaneously, your position is that, because he hit left-handed, Powell had an enormous advantage, especially at Ebbetts Field, over the right-handed hitting Hodges. Obviously, your two positions contradict themselves, which is why this discussion keeps going in circles (that, and because you won't answer questions).
I can find all kinds of "who has done this?" crap if I focus on the raw numbers, and ignore context. Hitters in hitter's parks lead the league in most stuff most of the time, and compile streaks that hitters in pitcher's parks, or neutral parks, simply can't. Yes, I am the stat guy, and as such I refuse to lend any credence whatsoever to 100 RBI seasons, or 30 HR seasons, or any other stat that reflects more on the ballpark and team than on the player in question. I will say, though, that if Hodges had done what you say he did - averaged 100 walks for those 10 seasons, we'd be having a different discussion. Because if Hodges had done that - not clear to me at all why you are claiming he did, by the way - his OPS+ would be 7 points higher and he'd clearly be better than Cooper, et. al.
OK. Here is the list of first basemen who have higher JAWS than Hodges and are not HOFers.
Albert Pujols
Miguel Cabrerra
Rafael Palmeiro
Todd Helton
Joey Votto
Mark McGwire
Keith Hernandez
John Olerud
Jason Giambi
Will Clark
David Ortiz
Mark Teixeira
Fred McGriff
Norm Cash
Dolph Camilli
Paul Goldschmidt
I don't know about you, but there are not a lot of names on that list that scream "HOFer" to me, but few of them are demonstrably worse than Hodges. Still, if you are going to say that 21 first basemen aren't enough, this is the list I would start to pick from. A short (95th of all time) and undistinguished (.467 winning percentage) managerial career punctuated by one (rightly) celebrated World Series doesn't enhance his resume one bit.
Why list players who are still playing or just retired?
Why list juicers?
LOTS of 1st baseman are GREAT hitters. Several on the above list are better than Hodges and some are not as good.
If you want about 100 guys total in the hall your'e too late.
Hodges' total accomplishments offensively, defensively. as a manager. as a sportsman add up to a HOFer to me.
The contradiction is that you go on and on about how easy it was to hit in Ebbets, but say the shorter fences in right in every park isn't the same reasoning as hitting in a smaller park like Ebbets.
Left Field almost always farther than right = easier to hit if you bat left.
Ebbets was an easy park to hit in. EVERY park is easier for a left handed batter to hit in. Name ONE park where right field down the line is farther than left. A weaker left handed hitter then can hit home runs easier than a similar or even stronger right handed guy.
Very basic reasoning here, but it seems to escape you.
Powell couldn't beat out Gentile, Hodges never missed a game. Boog would have sat.
Yes I did make an error on the walks. That was a big mistake.
Can you find someone who did it minus the 100 walks? No.
He's already clearly better than Cooper and Powell, Powell comes closer though. Powell was too up and down for me. A great year followed by a bad one or two and missed a lot of games. I don't know if he sat against tough left handers or was hurt a lot but he didn't play enough % of his teams games.
Powell had 3 years with over 500 AB Hodges had 9. They both had a couple that were just short of 500.
It has now been revealed that OPS+ is an average, so the guy who seems to be similar and plays a higher % of the time is BETTER.
I don't know about you, but this has become tiresome, as it usually does.
I am sure we will find someone else to argue/debate about soon.
Happy 4th of July to you and everyone else!
Seriously, WTF? I will repeat this as clearly as I can. Yes, it is easier to hit in Ebbetts. Yes, there are shorter fences in RF almost everywhere and this makes it easier for lefties. Yes, lefties in Ebbetts would have had it especially easy. And yes, this applies to Powell, and you have convinced me that he would have outhit Hodges by a country mile. ALL of your arguments lead to this inescapable conclusion, and yet you are the single only person who it is escaping.
Couldn't beat out Gentile? You're just fu**ing with me now, right? When Hodges came up the O's had a great first baseman and a terrible left fielder; Powell could play either, so he replaced the terrible left fielder and he and Gentile were both regular starters for two seasons until they traded Gentile. To keep Powell's bat in the lineup the O's would have played him at SS if they had to, and they would have benched Gentile if they had to, but not being stupid they kept both Powell and Gentile in the lineup at positions they could both play reasonably well.
As for Hodges, and Boog sitting, you have already provided an airtight proof that this is false, so I'm not falling for that silliness.
I dunno about educated
It compares a player against all other players for a given season. The goal of OPS+ is to calculate how well a given player, in a given year, performed in comparison to an average player.
Not exactly. He hit in an era where it was easier to hit in general. So what looks like an unbelievable season might not translate quite as well in terms of OPS+ because EVERYBODY was hitting better. Kinda like how hitting .300 in the National League in 1930 was no big deal since the entire league hit .303 for the year.
In a given season in the 1950s, there were approximately 95000 plate appearances across all players. Your four guys would account for maybe 2600 of those or about 2.7%. Their cumulative input into the league OBP and SLG used to calculate OPS+ isn't going to have that huge of an effect. Four guys with OBPs of .400 instead of .340 just isn't going to change the league OBP all that much.
Basically. For a truly mega-superstar to hit for a higher OPS+ in the mid-70s, yes, it would be easier, simply because hitting in general was so much harder in the mid-70s. However...hitting was a lot harder in the mid-70s. It all cancels itself out.
Both. Don't think you'll find anybody arguing those guys were as good as Williams, Mantle & Musial. But it was also a lot harder to hit in general.
Nobody makes the claim that the decades have exactly comparable players.
A fair point and one I agree with when it comes to park factors. Ex: Tiger Stadium was a pitcher's park for right-handed hitters. Not so much for lefties.
Well, in his best 10-year streak, Hodges hit 30 homers only 60% of the time and 100 BB only 10% of the time so...
Albert Pujols, on the other hand, actually DID hit 30 homers every year for 10 straight, actually DID get 100 RBI all 10 years, 100 BB three times (and 92, 97, & 99 in other years) while playing 96% of his team's games. He also won a Gold Glove, stole double digit bases three times, won a batting title, and hit over .300 all 10 of those years.
I'll take Albert's 10-year streak
I don't think Hodges would be a detriment to the Hall but, at the end of the day, he's a guy who finished as high as 7th in the MVP race exactly once. Clearly, he wasn't THAT highly thought-of at the time.
Let's see. Of the players on my list seven are not yet eligible, and two others are difficult cases due to suspected PED. Ortiz goes on both lists. My point is that unless you want to induct all fifteen of my players, you have to make a case for why Hodges is more deserving. Who on my list is not as good? Hodges isn't competing with Cooper and Powell, but rather the above fifteen.
I value Gold Glove only slightly higher than fielding percentage. Can we agree that first base is the position where the range from minimally acceptable fielding to excellent fielding matters least?
Offensively: great for a shortstop, nothing special for a first baseman. Defensively, your only evidence is anecdotal. Baseball reference has him a a minus fielder in dWAR. You're free to disagree, but have provided no reasons for anyone else to believe he's an all-time great. Mazeroski was considered an all-time great at second (not third) where defense is MUCH more important. Big difference between "best of his era" and "best all-time". Managerial careen was short (95th of all time) and undistinguished (235th winning percentage of those who managed more than two full seasons). I'll grant you "sportsman" only because I haven't dug deep trying to refute it.
So we have anecdotally good defense at first and anecdotally good sportsman. I'd accept that as a reason to push a marginal candidate over the top. Hodges isn't that close. Do you really want to induct every first baseman better than George Kelly? I mean it's OK if you believe that Travis Hafner, Tino Martinez, and Mo Vaughan have been wrongfully omitted, but I think you'll find yourself awfully lonely.
Humble too? :-)
Average ignores one players playing every day as being "better" than, say the other guy playing part of the time. A batter who doesn't get enough ABs won't be considered for a batting title. OPS+ (imo) should deduct for games missed.
No, but those four guys might just be one part of it. In the 1970's there might have been a lot of really crappy guys too. If 4 guys can effect the total number by nearly 3%, what if 10 guys REALLY sucked in the '70's that only made the Majors because of there being more players in MLB? Would it be that hard to change the % by 7% on the bottom to go along with the 2.7% off the top making the number 10% off?
I get it, but couldn't you also say that hitting was the same, the players were just not as good? Or there was a big influx of average players and some real bad ones, and be just as proven as a theory?
Seems to me some of the guys think so. Way back in the dark ages when I was in school, to figure a fair comparison, you threw out the top and bottom numbers and figured the rest from there. Isn't that kind of thought process considered correct any longer. Remember I am OLD and probably have senility AND dementia as well.
Thank you.
He averaged 30 HR didn't he? Never hit below 22.
Absolutely!
I did make an error in looking at Hodges' RBI numbers Probably had a few too many tabs open at the same time.
Puhols and Gehrig both had better ten year "peaks" than Gil at 1B. Couple of HOFers right there! No, Gil wasn't nearly as good as either of them, but that 10 (11) years stretch was impressive.
Point taken.
If he would have hit in the 1970's he might have won a couple. Funny how Powell would have been so much better in Hodges' time, but Hodges might have been a top player in Powell's?
Hodges gets hurt because he had several of the all time greats playing at the same time. Powell gets rewarded because his competition was guys like Yaz, FRobby, Killebrew, Carew and Reggie? Frank Robinson was the only one I would rate anywhere near the "All-Time Great" category.
Hard to win MVP's against the guys he competed against. Musial and Mays prolly should have won it MORE times. Add in Kiner, Robinson, Snyder, Aaron, Banks and Mathews with FRobby coming along, and Gil is not going to win any MVP's. Gil never had that monster year, he never had a below average one either for 10-11 years.
Eliminate pitchers and he's in the top 5 just about every year for that decade. Not elite.....just below, every year.
Not so much late in the decade.
I looked and there were about 3 years in the 1950's that I can't find a good argument against the MVP chosen. 1954 they got it right 58 and 59 were fine. Musial got screwed early and often!
Powell won a MVP when there were several guys who were better that year. Yaz was quite a bit better that year. Oliva, Harper and Fregosi looked better too, Killebrew about equal. Sal Bando? Reggie Smith? Roy White? Jim Palmer? Oops he's a pitcher.
Bottom line for me here is Hodges offensive numbers alone don't get him in. They do get him very close.
I give him "extra" credit for 2 years missed, for that 11 year period of excellence (not one down year) while missing almost no games (in 1959 he did miss 40), being a tremendous defensive player and being a wonderful sportsman. As a slight plus (the cherry on top if you will) he won a WS as a manager.
He excelled in every area that is a criteria for induction. That puts him easily in for me. I can't prove it with numbers though. :-(
Numbers are a huge part of baseball. For me it's that.......and a lot more.
BANZAI+ ;-)
No good numbers associated with Defense. None at all with sportmanship. Two of the areas I value have no meaning to you, so I understand your argument completely.
I am not going to take the time to see if Olerud belongs based on your "one number" list, (actually I did , why I don't know, he had 8 years he played every day and was very good, a bit below Gil though) but most of those guys will get in or should get in, if not cheaters. Hard to tell how good the cheaters actually were, so leaving them out, as well as guys not eligible (let's wait and see until then and not put them in quite yet) your list could be as low as 7. ALL great hitters. So they all qualify in ONE respect. Some had pretty short careers, some might have been poor defenders.
Hernandez should be in imo.
Please see if you can find some other obscure 1st basemen who obviously fall short of HOF consideration. I will look at Mo Vaughn (for no particular reason) GREAT hitter! 5 out of 6 years plenty good enough years, 10 year career, 1991 and 2003 are not years, that's not enough.
This is incredibly simple, do it yourself and come up with sensible guys to compare him to, certainly NOT current players, cetainly NOT cheaters.
Puhols and Cabrerra will waltz in though. Deservedly so.
A lot of guys playing 1st are/were great hitters so a lot of them will be in the HOF as opposed to 2nd base guys. I didn't know there was a positional limit.
I get it, you don't like Gil enough, you're not convinced, you never will be, because there's not a number that is high enough for you. That's fine.
I disagree.
That's fine too.
Edited to add; Thanks at least for backing me up on Cooper and Powell.........two more guys who were NOT as good as Gil.
I don't really get the argument in favor of Hernandez but not Olerud. Hernandez is widely considered the best defensive first baseman of all-time. OK. That doesn't mean a whole lot to me, but we'll give it to him. Olerud is right there, however. All-time elite defensive 1B. dWAR doesn't reflect it but that stat stinks anyway. Where Olerud really shined was in eliminating throwing errors. 6'5" with a huge wingspan and a great ability to get down low and dig out throws.
Offensively, they were fairly similar guys but Olerud had a higher peak and more power. Hernandez did win an MVP (you could make a case for Winfield) but Olerud had a season where he led the league in OPS and OPS+, which Hernandez never did. He also hit .350 a second time, something Hernandez didn't do even once.
To me, it boils down to - is John Olerud a HOF'er? Most people would say no. If he's not, Hernandez isn't either.
OPS+ "titles" take into consideration plate appearances, same as the batting title. It's just not an officially recognized title like batting average is.
Just like no one takes points off a guy's batting average for playing 130 games instead of 150, people won't do that with OPS+. It's a rate state as I explained before.
They don't impact the total number by nearly 3%. They make up 3% of the total number but their actual impact is the difference between their numbers and what replacements, or average players, would put up in the same number of PAs. Say those four guys combined for 150 homers and that was 3% of the total for the year (both numbers completely made up). Now take them out and put in four other guys. Those four other guys are probably going to hit, what? 70 homers? Maybe 80? Let's go with 70. Then the effect of the original four guys is actually 80 homers not 150 since that's what they contributed over and above "normal" guys.
Well, there are lots of ways to do averages and comparisons. Throwing out the extremes is one way.
Averaging 30 homers and "30 HR every year" are not the same thing. You said "30 HR every year" when, in fact, he reached that number only 60% of the time.
A fair point. When your competition is Aaron & Mays, good luck. Then again, those two didn't win three MVPs in the 50s. Roy Campanella did. Campy was an amazing player but he's not in the Aaron/Mays stratosphere either yet, somehow, he managed three MVPs.
Being on a winning team has benefits in MVP voting
Yeah, see, I don't give guys credit for stuff they didn't do. Hodges didn't play those two years so he gets no credit. Sure it wasn't his "fault" he didn't play but...he didn't. Maybe he gets hurt playing those two years and never does anything? We don't know. Just like you wouldn't punish him for something that didn't happen, you shouldn't credit him either.
Hodges saw his numbers go in the tank when the Dodgers went west. This despite the fact that their home park had a 251-foot fence in LF. Yeah, they put up a net/fence. You'd think Hodges would either have a lot of homers because the fence is so short or a lot of doubles because the fence was so high. He did neither.
By not doing well in LA, Hodges was seen as a product of Ebbets Field, which knocked him down in HOF voting. You can argue whether that's correct or fair but it's definitely a factor.
Joebanzi
some have already pointed it out, and I have explained it on here a million times...OPS+ can only be misleading when the comparing players have a big difference in plate appearances, or when one sits on the bench for unfavorable matchups(The Ken Phelps factor). When those factors are EVEN, then OPS+ is among the pinnacle of hitting measurements. There are however factors from the era one played in that can be misleading...just like it is misleading for all stats.
Ken Phelps is the extreme, hence the name "Ken Phelps factor."
Ken Phelps has a lifetime OPS+ of 132, as good or better as some of the best HOF hitters from his era.
THat does not mean OPS+ is flawed, and it also does not mean Ken Phelps was anywhere as good as Eddie Murray, George Brett, Dave Winfield, or Jim Rice.
Ken Phelps only had 2,200 lifetime plate appearances and he only played vs Righties and he only played when he was in the prime of his career. If one understands baseball that needs no further explanation.
For anyone that doesn't understand that by now, I probably give up....but then I will give one last ditch effort to avoid throwing in the towel in disbelief, and we will use Batting Average as the example.
Terry Forster has a lifetime batting average of .397. Joebanzi and 1970's, based on your philosophy and words, one can only draw two conclusions from the fact that Terry Forster has a lifetime batting average of .397:
1) Based on your words, that makes Forster a better hitter than Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and almost anybody else because he out hits him them in the all important stat of Batting Average.
or
2) Based on your words, that makes batting average a flawed stat because it says he is a better hitter than Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and almost anybody else because he out hits them all.
Soooo, either use this as an example to stop saying OPS+ is flawed for the reasons YOU are giving......OR....start using those same reasons and never mention batting average again.
A pleasure debating with you. My mom always said I should have stayed in school.
No, I wouldn't say Terry Forster was a better hitter than those guys.
Exactly the opposite of what I am saying. I guess I am really bad at trying to explain my thinking, so I won't try it with you any more here.
Hodges is in my HOF, Cooper and Powell aren't.
Thank you. That truly means a lot. And right back at ya.
>
Seems Rocky Colavito should belong in your HOF too then. Curious to hear why he wouldn't. George Foster too.
Rocky was very good, a bit low on SLG a bit low on PA and OB%. 1958 was a nice year '61 was too. but it was for a lot of guys. I hear he had a cannon for an arm. Really only had an 11 yr career. Real nice run of years hitting HR. Best pitcher in the history of baseball LOL
Foster doesn't look quite as good to me, seems to be several years he missed a lot of time, 1976-78 were HOF type years.
If Colavito got in, it wouldn't bother me, he might get my vote, but he's a borderline guy imo, Foster a touch below, but still a fine player.
I followed the AL more than the NL, so other than just looking at numbers, I don't know much about Foster.
He had that one huge year and never really did anything close again, (or before). What happened 1971-73? He didn't play much. He was pretty good right up until the end. Should have walked more.
I'll bet the fans in Cincinnati think he should be in.
I went to a lot of effort looking at a group of first basemen that have been discussed here, and a few other contemporaries that struck me as potentially comparable to the others. And I bent over backward to penalize hitters for not playing as long as Hodges, and gave no extra credit for playing longer than Hodges (other than counting what they actually did in those extra years). The list below is, I think, as fair to Hodges as one could possibly be, and probably tilts a bit towards favoring Hodges unfairly. Fielding gets some weight, but we're talking about first base - it doesn't get much.
No ranking number because these are just random first basemen and there is a large class of players a whole lot better than the one's shown here, but in order, from best to worst:
Dick Allen
Will Clark
Keith Hernandez
John Olerud (just a hair behind Hernandez)
Boog Powell
Mark Grace
Dolph Camilli
Kent Hrbek
Bob Watson
Gil Hodges
Steve Garvey
Wally Joyner
Ted Kluszewski
Cecil Cooper
Bill White
A few notes:
The blank lines indicate groupings. Allen and Clark were of similar value, Hernandez, Olerud, and Powell, were of similar value but markedly less than Allen and Clark, etc. I used a formula to create the ranking order shown, but all names within a grouping are close enough that the order within that grouping doesn't really matter.
I included WPA to take clutch hitting into account, and that's what dropped Cooper down. Having viewed a more complete picture, I agree that Hodges was better.
For the players with shorter careers than Hodges, I adjusted their stats to get them up to the same number of plate appearances as Hodges, and assumed not that they were average over those added games, but terrible over those added games.
I looked only at career value, and ignored peak. This favors Hodges, who had no real peak - just consistency, a great deal.
The building block stats that went into this ranking are WPA, Batter Runs, Win Shares and plate appearances. (i.e., don't complain about OPS+, it's not in here).
The adjustment made to normalize career length to be at least as long as Hodges: I assumed that for each 500 PA added, the player would have a WPA of -3, Batter Runs of -3, and zero win shares.
The final order is based on the harmonic mean of the players Win Shares, adjusted Batter Runs, and adjusted WPA *10.
Having now done all the research and analysis I think I can do, I will officially let this go.
I was wondering why I didn't notice Allen on my Baseball Reference list. For some reason it lists him as a third baseman even though he played ~900 innings more at first. Any idea why?
I noticed that too. More complete games at third? It's a stretch, but he seems to have played more of his career at third and moved to first in '69, (back at third a bit more in 71) but he of course had many more appearances at first.
Looks to me like he was a 3B guy for 7 years and a 1B for 8. He did come up as a 3B.
Could the player have any input here?
Killebrew played all over too. You could claim he was primarily a 3B until 1971 (with 3 years in LF thrown in) so most of his career (kind of) he was more known for 3B. However he gets listed as a 1B. He should have stayed at third until '71.
Good question. How is it determined?
Foster had Pete Rose blocking his way those early years in.
He did quite a bit more than just 1977. From 1975-1981 his OPS+ was 149. His 162 per game average was 38 HR and 126 RBI. His actual average was 138 games per year, 32HR and 107 RBI.
1981 strike was part of the reason his missed games, 1979 had an injury, and 1975 he had to earn his way into a stacked lineup.
But part of that initial premise was that Hodges was the best first baseman of the 1950's, and thus should be in the HOF.
As of now, I don't think it can be refuted about him being the best first baseman of the 1950s....unless you start assembling a team and then just say, "Stan Musial will play first base, etc..."
But for actual position played, Hodges still reigns king as top first baseman of 1950's.
Sooo...is that enough?
Just to be clear, when we say Hodges was the best first baseman of the 1950's, that is an accident of the calendar. Several much better first basemen played during the decade, but not in each year from 1950-1959. So, we're arbitrarily picking 10-year periods that begin in years evenly divisible by 10, and asking if the best over those periods deserve consideration not given to the best at a position from, say, 1946 to 1955 (best 1B = Mickey Vernon). Um, I vote no.
By the same measure, the best SS of the 1970's was Bert Campaneris. I'd prefer to see Campy in the HOF to Hodges, but I think it's a stretch to say he deserves it.
The best third baseman of the 1950's was .... Ed Yost. Anyone want to make his HOF case?
The best catcher of the 1960's was Joe Torre. I do think he deserved to be in the HOF as a player, but I wouldn't have thought so except for what he accomplished in the 1970's playing other positions. But the question appears to be, would Torre have deserved to be in the HOF had he faded away shortly after the 60's ended and not won an MVP. I vote no, and I bet nobody wants to argue otherwise.
Bottom line, _________ was the best at his position for the decade of the ____'s is not nearly enough to make a HOF case.
What I meant was his 52 HR, that was an unusually high total for anyone at the time. Great RBI and SLG as well.
I think it's enough, or at least to get his "foot in the door" add the fact that he played almost every game, and (nobody but you and I seem to care) his legacy of sportsmanship and he's there for me easily. I think he was a good manager, he might have been better, but he died young, after a round of golf with Mets coaches Joe Pignatano, Rube Walker, and Eddie Yost.
He sure did a lot betwen fighting in WWll and dying young. Spent every day of his adult life playing or managing baseball.
From Wikipedia;
Jackie Robinson, told the Associated Press, "He was the core of the Brooklyn Dodgers.
Duke Snider said "Gil was a great player, but an even greater man." Johnny Podres; "I've never known a finer man."
When he retired after the 1963 season, he had hit the most home runs (370) ever by a right handed batter up to that point in time (surpassed by Willie Mays) and the most career Grand Slams (14) by a National League player (eclipsed by Willie McCovey). He shares the Major League record of having hit four home runs in a single game (Only 18 players have ever done so in MLB history).
Dallas' list of players better at 1B; Number after player is how many all-star games.
Dick Allen 7 Right handed hitter, 807 games at 1B, missed a lot of games, MUCH better hitter than Gil, attitude issues. No.
Will Clark 6 Left handed hitter, Not enough HR per AB, 2nd half of his career not as good and missed a lot of games. Yes
Keith Hernandez 5 Left handed hitter, Not enough HR per AB, SLG a little too low. Tie
John Olerud 2 Left handed hitter, Not enough HR per AB, nice 7 year run. VERY close but No/Maybe
Boog Powell 4 Left handed hitter, surprised at his lower SLG, lower JAWS and WAR than Gil. No
Mark Grace 3 Left handed hitter,Nice batting average, no power. No
Dolph Camilli 2 Left handed hitter, nice 7 year run, too short a career. No
Kent Hrbek 1 Left handed hitter, really surprised me, JAWS and WAR a lot lower than Gil. Almost a tie, Maybe.
Bob Watson 2 Right handed hitter, nice batting average, not as many games at 1B. No
Gil Hodges 8 Right handed hitter, best slugger of the bunch after Allen
All the players listed were great!
I didn't give anyone credit for games they didn't play and ignored Gil's "missing" years.
Obviously I think it's harder for Righties to hit HR but Gil hit them better than the Left handers. I like my 1B guy to hit HRs. I also like my guy to be an excellent fielder, I don't see how it matters if it's an "easier" position to play defense. He's got to have a good glove!
After looking at the numbers I wonder why Will Clark isn't in. 1994-97 Hurt a lot? .300 BA with a .497 SLG is an uncommon combination of excellence!
I wouldn't argue against several of these guys getting in HOF, Especially Clark and Hernandez, along with Gil.
Most surprised at Hrbek, better than I thought and I always liked him.
Surprised also that Mattingly didn't get mentioned, injuring his back seems to be what ruined a certain HOF career.
The list of players worthy of inclusion in the HOF is so long that justice will never be done for them.
You are 100% correct.