Quote:
Originally Posted by mr2686
I'm not sure how much they were lacking as a manager. He managed 2 teams, the crappy Senators and the mediocre Mets. If you look at the Senators progression under him, they made great strides every year. The Mets won 12 additional games in his first season with Seaver basically having an identical record from the year before (they did add Koosman). His last two years were solid and almost identical to the Cubs (another strong team from that era) but were up against some up and coming great teams like the Pirates (also the Reds in the opposite division). When you add this to the fact that he was the premier 1b of his era that won 3 gold gloves (would have been much more but they didn't start giving them out till 1957...almost the end of his career. He was long overdue in my book and glad he's finally in.
|
He was a manager for 9 seasons and won 84+ games once.
Yes, the Senators improved under his tenure but not "great strides every year". From 1965 to 1966, they went up 1 win. 1966 to 1967, they went up 5 wins. Full credit to him for taking over a team that was completely horrible and getting them up to semi-respectable.
Hodges deserves a lot of credit for taking the Mets to the World Series in 1969. But, if that's the case, he deserves a lot of blame for them dropping off 17 wins the next year and not improving the year after that.
None of this is to say Hodges was a bad manager but let's be honest - one World Series title and a record 93 games under .500 isn't exactly amazing. I mean, Cito Gaston won 2 titles, won 84+ games four times, and finished over .500 but nobody lists him as a managerial great.
And, again, none of this matters - Hodges was inducted as a player. So, theoretically, his managerial career shouldn't be considered at all.