Options
Should Gil Hodges be in the Hall of Fame?
Gemmy10
Posts: 2,990 ✭
in Sports Talk
I have seen many arguments on this board for his inclusion. OK, if he goes in so does Tino. They have unbelievably similar offensive stats (BA, HR, and RBI):
Hodges - .273 BA, 370 HR, 1274 RBI
Tino - .272 BA, 322 HR, 1222 RBI
This is Tino's 16th season. Hodges played 18 seasons. They are both great players but borderline HOF.
SOURCE:
Gil Hodges
Tino Martinez
Hodges - .273 BA, 370 HR, 1274 RBI
Tino - .272 BA, 322 HR, 1222 RBI
This is Tino's 16th season. Hodges played 18 seasons. They are both great players but borderline HOF.
SOURCE:
Gil Hodges
Tino Martinez
0
Comments
Are you being just half serious and half funny?
Let me explain what I am getting at.
You can't compare two players from two different eras in terms of raw stats. Sure their numbers are similar, but you have to put it in context.
For example, how many times did Hodges have an OPS in the top 10 during his playing days. Compare that with how many times Martinez was in the top 10 in OPS. You can't compare numbers, but you can compare rankings. In some eras, 12 homers a season was a lot, while in other eras, you need over 40 homers to break the top 10. Find out who the top 10 were and those are your great players for the respective era.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
At least you wont have to worry about it for another two years. And I hope the Thurman Munson campaign has ended based on the last set of voting results.
Deutschergeist hit the nail on the head when he said that you have to put it into context. I am still amazed that people do not understand this.
My recommendation to all baseball fans is to read the Hidden Game of baseball(or the encyclopedia book Total Baseball), as that will enlighten the amateur fan at least half way to the truth on evaluation. After that is read, then it would eliminate the need to re-cover all the elementary aspects in evaluation when a question like this is posed.
After that book is read, then you can start digging in on all the aspects, missing elements(and minor flaws), that the Hidden Game doesn't meet and so forth(to get closer to truth), but it will at least spare the enlightened fans from having to repeat and debate on how to walk...over and over and over and over again(like we have to do with context everytime this type of question is posed).
I'm just sitting here shaking my head in disbelief as I type this. Baseball fans owe it to the baseball community to at least enlighten themselves a little if they choose to engage in topics like this. If your preferenece as a baseball fan is just to enjoy watching a game and having some fun, then don't worry about reading anything. But, if it is to engage in a conversation about topics like this, then at least research it the right way.
I 100% agree with you.
Thurman was my favorite.
Skinpinch, please re-read my post. I did not say Tino should be a Hall of Famer.
Clearly you think Batting Average is the only important thing. Let me give you a little education:
RBI = Runs Batted In, which help a team win
Home Runs = a hit which produces at least one run and many times more than one Run. The ball usually goes out of the ball park but ocassionally remains in the park.
Tino Martinez-
Home Runs:
1997-44-2
2001-34-10
RBI:
1995-111-5
1996-117-10
1997-141-2
1998-123-6
Runs Created:
1997-129-4
Slugging %
1997-.577-6
OPS 1997-.948-9
Total Bases:
1995-286-8
1997-343-3
Doubles:
1995-35-5
Extra-Base Hits:
1995-69-6
1997-77-3
Intentional Walks:
1995-15-5
1997-14-4
Sac. Flies:
1997-13-1
1998-10-6
2003-7-7
Silver Sluggers 1997-AL--1B
Tino??? Wha???? No comparison to Hodges.
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
If it is, clearly neither player is anywhere near the HOF level. If you were joking, then - nevermind.
He only finished top 10 in OPS once (and ninth at that?)
Tino is a solid player, but never will make the hall. RBIs are more a product of his team getting on base ahead of him than anything else. I've always felt RBI is a way overstated statistic.
The fact that the best Tino has ever been able to do was 9th (once), proves he's never had a dominant season.
1995-111-5
1997-141-2
1998-123-6
1997-129-4
1997-.577-6
1995-286-8
1997-343-3
1995-35-5
1995-69-6
1997-77-3
1995-15-5
1997-14-4
1997-13-1
1998-10-6
2003-7-7
<<The fact that the best Tino has ever been able to do was 9th (once), proves he's never had a dominant season. >>
Axtell Rose,
I really think you need to go back to kindergarten to learn what a "9" looks like.
I have a few PSA 2's I can sell you at PSA 9 prices.
P.S. yes I know you were only talking about OPS but the others were talking about OPS. It's nice to pick and choose conveniently for you.
Like I said in my post, if you plan on posing a question like this, then you need to learn a lot more about evaluation. RBI do show something, but a players teammates are a large factor to determine how many RBI's you get. Now, if you can show that Tino Martinez was exceptional hitter with men on base, then his OPS+ gets a little boost.
The question you posed, putting him in the same light as Hodges, shows you have no idea about what context is, and until you learn about it, you basically have no business discussing things like this.
Stick to something you know when discussing things. Maybe I will walk to NASA and debate their rocket scientists about shuttle exploration because I've watched some shuttle launches, and I've read a few articles in a science magazine.
Obviously baseball isn't that, but there has been enormous amounts of research done to answer the types of questions(quite accurately), that you just posed. You obviously don't know of any of it, so stick to just watching a game with a beer in your hand. Forget about debating things until you have an elementary grasp on at least a few of the principles, LIKE CONTEXT!
Senior Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Dec 2002
Thursday April 21, 2005 10:05 AM
It never ceases to amaze me what people believe! The scary part is that this guy is posing it as a serious question. Tino never once finsihed as a top ten hitter in MLB! Not once. He finsihed 8th in the AL once, and that makes him a Hall of Fame candidate??
Deutschergeist hit the nail on the head when he said that you have to put it into context. I am still amazed that people do not understand this.
My recommendation to all baseball fans is to read the Hidden Game of baseball(or the encyclopedia book Total Baseball), as that will enlighten the amateur fan at least half way to the truth on evaluation. After that is read, then it would eliminate the need to re-cover all the elementary aspects in evaluation when a question like this is posed.
After that book is read, then you can start digging in on all the aspects, missing elements(and minor flaws), that the Hidden Game doesn't meet and so forth(to get closer to truth), but it will at least spare the enlightened fans from having to repeat and debate on how to walk...over and over and over and over again(like we have to do with context everytime this type of question is posed).
I'm just sitting here shaking my head in disbelief as I type this. Baseball fans owe it to the baseball community to at least enlighten themselves a little if they choose to engage in topics like this. If your preferenece as a baseball fan is just to enjoy watching a game and having some fun, then don't worry about reading anything. But, if it is to engage in a conversation about topics like this, then at least research it the right way.
Me a moron? Anybody who keeps that ugly default avatar and doesn't have the creativity to do their own is a moron. LOL By the way I was responding to axtell. No where in your post do you mention the word 9th. Axtell=Skinpinch
Your right, I never said ninth, I said 8th in the AL, but NEVER in the top ten in MLB as a hitter or total player by any good standard of measurement. Most years, he wasn't even in the zip code.
Also, my apologies for flying off the handle, but I am still surprised that people(some acknowledged die hard fans) still have no idea what putting it into context means.
I was truly serious when I said to read the Hidden Game, or Total baseball, as those are pretty informative on the stuff that every fan should know about how good a player is, and how to measur it. Of course, those books do miss things, and some things have been improved upon, but it is pretty good nonetheless. Some of their defensive measurements are way off, but their Linear weights batting is pretty good. It misses on how much a player contributes with men on hitting. It does an OK job of cross era evaluation, but needs to make one more step in that area to get it right.
<< <i>1997-44-2
1995-111-5
1997-141-2
1998-123-6
1997-129-4
1997-.577-6
1995-286-8
1997-343-3
1995-35-5
1995-69-6
1997-77-3
1995-15-5
1997-14-4
1997-13-1
1998-10-6
2003-7-7
<<The fact that the best Tino has ever been able to do was 9th (once), proves he's never had a dominant season. >>
Axtell Rose,
I really think you need to go back to kindergarten to learn what a "9" looks like.
I have a few PSA 2's I can sell you at PSA 9 prices.
P.S. yes I know you were only talking about OPS but the others were talking about OPS. It's nice to pick and choose conveniently for you. >>
Spammy, OPS is the single best statistic for determing a hitter's value in relativity to the league. You can sit there and spout off HR totals, or whatever you want, but that doesn't show any relativity to the league.
The FACT (yes, I know facts are hard for you to get your hands around spammy) that Tino at best was 9th in the league in ops shows he's never been a dominant hitter. I stated CLEARLY that OPS was what I was referring to when I said 9th...I can't help it if your minute brain can't comprehend that, or you think that you are being funny. Either way you look ignorant.
Tino's Stats
I've gone ahead and put the link here for you to look up, as it's obvious you fail to see the facts in front of you. Spammy, I really can't believe you are trying to fight this battle that Tino should be in the hall.
One more thing...spammy you're attacking people's avatars now? And saying they are uncreative? How creative is it to stick a mantle card as your avatar? Or my having a mariner's logo? Get over yourself and your damn yankees...just because you wear pinstripes doesn't merit you automatic induction into the hall you moron.
<< <i>
This is Tino's 16th season. Hodges played 18 seasons. They are both great players but borderline HOF.
>>
YOU Said:
<< <i>
Again, re-read my post. I never said Tino SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. Who has trouble reading?
>>
So from your own posts, spam boy, you said that they are borderline HOF, and with all your issuance of stats for Tino, sounds like you are stumping for him.
I am not alone in my feeling that you think he's HoF worthy....but when you get called on it, you suddenly retract?
Weak.
Martinez is in the same class as John Olerud, Wally Joyner, Will Clark, ....great all round first baseman, but not quite like Mattingly, who was the best at one time. And none of those are Lou Gehrig.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Soon we will have to name it the "Hall of very good but not great players and better than average guys that played for the Yankees and Dodgers".
HOF Quarterbacks Football
<< <i>Yes... Gil Hodges belongs in the Hall of Hame >>
Heh on what merit? Oh wait, he was a yankee so he deserves automatic entry?
Gil Hodges was a good player, but far, far from a Hall of Fame worthy player.
Heh on what merit? Oh wait, he was a yankee so he deserves automatic entry?<<
Hodges was a Dodger - not a Yankee; and, yes, he deserves to be in.
<< <i>>> << Yes... Gil Hodges belongs in the Hall of Hame >>
Heh on what merit? Oh wait, he was a yankee so he deserves automatic entry?<<
Hodges was a Dodger - not a Yankee; and, yes, he deserves to be in. >>
My mistake...and why do you say that?
It makes me laugh that every old timer player who has a fan thinks that they should be in the hall. Are you nuts?
.273 career hitter
.359 career OBP
1921 career hits
370 career HR
.487 career SLG
Best MVP finish: 8th
Best batting AVG finish: 7th
Bets OPS finish: 5th (once)
Never led the league in HR, RBI, or SLG
He played 4 years too long too. His lst 4 years batting averages: .198, .242, .252, and .227 (the past 2 years he played a total of 65 games).
A solid career yes, but HoF? Give me a break.
My mistake...and why do you say that?>>
Because I also consider the fact that he piloted the Mets to their first World Series win. (Just my opinion and I admit that I'm not completely objective. I saw him play at Ebbetts field.)
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>keep in mind he was the National League Career leader for Grand Slams. I believe he had 16. He was a great clutch player and a great manager. He knew baseball as well as anyone and that is reason enough for me. >>
So now we can vote in those who know baseball and are 'clutch' (whatever that means)?
Just seems a bit vague for me (as well as those who vote for the hall).
Neither of these players will ever sniff the hall.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>I guess leading the National League for years with 16 career grand slams means nothing and being second in MLB for years only to Lou Gehrig doesn't count for much of anything... And being the Manager of the 1969 Mets and not just beating the Cubs in the NL East, but beating the Braves in the play-offs and then beating the Orioles in 5 games doesn't mean much either. >>
I didn't realize career grand slams was an important stat. And being a manager and winning one world series?
Just seems like you're reaching on reasons why he should be in the hall, is all.
I don't think anyone would say it "doesn't mean much." But it's simply not even close to being enough to get elected into the Hall of Fame.
Lou Gehrig just might be the best first baseman of all time, so if Gil was only second to him during their playing years, then that means a lot. Was he ever known as the best player in baseball?
Hodges played in an era where first baseman were usually going to be the high productive offensive hitters, so he needed to be known as the best to be considered a HOFer.
You have to look at Mattingly, Garvey and Rice and determine if they meant more in their respective eras than Hodges did in his. Mattingly was known as the best at one time and he innovated the position of first base, making it vital for defensive plays and making the infield stronger. A stellar glove would matter on first base from now on.
Rice was the scariest hitter in his era. Garvey was a very effective first baseman, but perhaps lacks the notoriety.
Did Hodges innovate anything in baseball or start a trend like Bruce Sutter with his killer pitch or Mattingly with his stellar glove or Babe Ruth with power baseball?
I don't know too much about the eras gone by to really comment more effectively. But, one would have to compare Hodges to other first baseman that are waiting to get in the HOF. Right now, I just don't think Hodges really pulls away from Mattingly and Rice, and they both have trouble getting in the Hall as well.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
How did Mattingly innovate first base, exactly? There were many great defensive firstbaseman before Mattingly that were moved to that position.
Also, to compare Mattingly and Rice in the eye of Hall of Fame voters is pretty inaccurate. Rice was selected on over 59% of the ballots. I would guess that virtually every player in history who has got over 59% of the votes on a ballot has eventually got in the Hall of Fame. Mattingly received slightly over 11% of the vote. He is closer to being removed from the ballot than making the Hall at this point, especially since his votes have gotten less and less each year.
Don Mattingly
Year Election Votes Pct
2001 BBWAA 145 28.16
2002 BBWAA 96 20.34
2003 BBWAA 68 13.71
2004 BBWAA 65 12.85
2005 BBWAA 59 11.43
<< <i>Did Hodges innovate anything in baseball or start a trend like...Mattingly with his stellar glove or Babe Ruth with power baseball?
>>
Uhm, huh? You are trying to say that Mattingly was the first great defensive first baseman?
When did this happen?
Anyone else get tired of these marginal (yes you heard me) players receiving fanatical support from a tiny percentage of people, pulling obscure stats (life grand slams? who cares!) and out and out fabrications (like the above statement) attempting to justify that player's induction into the Hall?
The hall of fame would indeed be a hall of shame if either Hodges or Mattingly were to ever be inducted...and Munson, as tragic as the end to his life was, will never be in either.
I guess I look at him as one who I wouldnt really complain if he made it, but wouldnt campaign for his induction either.
Mattingly and Martinez? They will need to buy a ticket to get into the Hall of Fame.
And the way its going, there may very well never be another player elected after their 15 years with the writers as the veterans dont want the Hall of Fame watered down (yes, ever Schoendienst, Doerr, Mazeroski, Rizzuto and the other fourth tier HOF'ers are voting that way as well).
I really don't think Cooperstown would loose anything if Gil Hodges was finally recognized as the player and manager he was. As for the Grand Slam comment, Hodges had more than Ernie Banks, Stan the Man, and I believe every National League player in the history of the game with the possible exception of either Willie McCovey or Willie Stargell... I apologize for not having a current record book handy. I am not an fanatic... I try to be objective.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I agree that Mattingly is more deserving then Tino. I never said Tino should get in. I was just comparing him to Hodges.
Mattingly has a lifetime BA of .307 with 9 Gold Gloves. His offensive statistics are very similar to Kirby Puckett. Someday Donny Baseball will make it.
<< <i>
Mattingly has a lifetime BA of .307 with 9 Gold Gloves. His offensive statistics are very similar to Kirby Puckett. Someday Donny Baseball will make it. >>
No he won't. And he doesn't belong, either. He was a good player, but never dominating for any stretch of time. Only 2153 hits and 222 HRs? That's not much of a career. If you are going to try and say he was a hitter for average, and that's why he should be in, then why so few of hits? And why such a low OBP of .359? If he was a power hitter, why so few HRs?
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: when you resort to comparing your numbers to others to attempt to make an arguement for induction, you don't belong.
And I am not a fanatic, I simply know baseball-reference.com is a complete record of statistics. Cooperstown wouldn't lose anything for letting him in? That's the best we can do to warrant induction now 'Cooperstown wouldn't lose anything'? And I'm not sure how objective you are being...especially when you stick on how he had the most career grand slams, and that somehow means he should be in the hall?
Not going to argue this point anymore...seems pointless.
<< <i>As more and more Steroid crapola comes out about "Record" Breakers, Mattingly will be seen by many as what he was, a true great player in a sea of Roid "Superstars". >>
Dude what are you talking about?
222 HRs? 2100 career hits? Those aren't 'great' numbers.
Quit being a yankee fanboi and look objectively at the numbers spammy.
I did not mean to imply you stated that Martinez outright belongs in the HOF. I was just making my own statements about Martinez in general. Did not mean to misrepresent you.
Others have not understood the point I was making. All I said was that Hodges has to be compared to Mattingly, Garvey and Rice when determining if he truely deserves induction. Who is the better 1st baseman of the four (in context of course). I am not comparing Rice with Mattingly, but I am saying that they both have not made the HOF is so many years of trying, so unless Hodges really stands out, he will continue to be left behind. If Rice makes it next time, good for him, but that's not what I am arguing here.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Well, the Mattingly-Hernandez era cemented the trend that first base is no longer a dumping ground for hitters who can not field. That's what the DH is for.
In today's game, managers are concerned about a first baseman fielding. In the past, it was irrelevent for the most part. Shortstop was a position where defensive talent was demanded because it strengthened the infield and gave a finesse pitcher a lot of help. This is why Ozzie Smith got into the HOF.
This is why the Yankees got Tino Martinez back, because they needed someone who can field first base. Giambi is like the first baseman of old--he can hit, but don't give him a glove.
Yes there were great defensive first baseman in the past, but those were isolated cases. The mentality back then was as long as a guy could hit, they will place him at first base. Come on, you guys know it was like this. This is not my opinion, its baseball history.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
This thread is not made to make you angry at us. Mattingly's 222 career homeruns will not get him in the HOF alone, but what Gemmy is saying is that his career will be looked upon differently in the years to come because of the steroid scandal. He was clean, while many of his fellow first baseman were not. The public does not want to see juicers in the Hall of Fame. So, when we talk about the best players of the 80's, you are going to have to question Palmeiro and McGwire. After scratching them off the list, what other first basemen are left that were great and clean. McGriff? Garvey? Mattingly? Get the picture?
THe HOF only set ONE statistical rule: 10 years service.
You seem to favor those who can compile the most numbers. So what if Mattingly got 222 career homers and just over 2100 hits. He had a short career, but still got an MVP, Batting Title, Led in hits, doubles, grandslams per season, RBIs.
With your criteria, Tino Martinez can stay healthy and get up to 3000 hits. Then you would have to say he deserves induction, right? Even if he never leads in any category, as long as he claws his way to 3000 hits, he is in the HOF. That is fine if you believe in stat compilation, but that is not a HOF criteria. It is something used by people, but it is not set in stone. What an athlete actually does in his career is also important as to how long it was.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>
THe HOF only set ONE statistical rule: 10 years service.
You seem to favor those who can compile the most numbers. >>
Absolutely not true. I have stated in each of these ridiculous posts that DOMINANCE is as important as career numbers. For example, should pitchers that somehow stay on to get to rack up 300 wins (don sutton comes to mind), or hitters who stay on to get 3000 hits (winfield comes to mind), shouldn't be rewarded.
To me, when I think of hall of famer, is someone who dominated and was at or near the top of their profession not only in fielding, but in hitting as well for a good long stretch. I don't think we should reward flash in the pans of a few years, even if their careers were cut short for reasons outside their control (Terrell Davis, for example). My stance on Sandy Koufax is equally as known....it's blashphemy but I don't think a 5 or 6 year stretch at the top of the game should merit induction.
For a hitter, I want someone who played at a very high level for a considerable amount of time. A nice decade or so of dominance. Ken Griffey Jr, for example. His 10 year stretch in the 90s is the epitome to me of a hall of fame career. I don't care what your feelings are for him since he left Seattle, THAT is what a HoF career should be at. Terrific in the field, a monster at the plate, CONSISTENCY.
So all these players (Mattingly, Hodges, Thurman Munson) while enjoyed fine careers, there is absolutely no way no how they deserve to be in the hall. Their fans will always hold out hope, but I have to ask if you let them in, then where does it stop? Yes the hall has made some mistakes in the past (ozzie smith? gary carter?) with questionable players, but if you are advocating continuing to make those mistakes over and over, then you are advocating making it a place for mediocre players to gather, instead of the best of the best.
With the oneset of the Herandez-Mattingly era coupled with the DH, teams are concerned more about how a player does glove work at first base as well as hitting. They are looking for more balance. THis is why Frank Thomas had difficulty in the free agent market. THis is why Tino Martinez was signed by the Cardinals with the departure of a defensive/offensive great in Mark McGwire. This is why The Yanks got Martinez back after Giambi proved to be a defensive liability.
Say what you want about Mattingly, but don't tell me teams were so concerned about defense at first before the 1980's.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee