Gil Hodges

[BobC]

Before you guys start going postal on each other, let me twist the question a bit. What about a guy who doesn't have perfect vision, and he goes and has Lasik surgery done and improves his sight more than it ever was. He certainly didn't "earn" the better eyesight, so why should that be allowed then? As one poster claimed, medical surgery is okay and allowed in his thinking because it gets the player healthy and back to his peak performance level that he had "earned". So what about Lasik surgery, a player doing that certainly wouldn't "earn" better eyesight, would he?

But someone taking something like androstenedione, which I believe still is a perfectly legal over the counter supplement used to bulk up (what McGwire was taking before MLB banned it for player use), would get suspended and potentially banned from baseball if caught using it. If I understand it correctly though, you don't just take the andro' and then suddenly blow up and get huge muscles. I believe the person still has to hit the weight room and work out like crazy to build up those muscles, which sure sounds to me like that player has to work his ass off to "earn" those muscles.

Funny, MLB will allow Lasik surgery, which can give a player a totally "unearned" advantage, yet they won't allow certain supplements (that get lumped in under the PED blanket) where the player still has to work hard to build up themselves and at least partially "earn" that alleged advantage. Seems a bit arbitrary and misguided on MLB's part to my thinking. And possibly along the same line of reasoning used by one poster who questioned why players getting surgery are okay, but their use of certain legal supplements isn't. I can see where that person may have a valid point, and certainly didn't deserve to get attacked and jumped on by another poster who maybe didn't think things through quite enough before attacking! Hmmmmmmmmm!

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by BobC

Before you guys start going postal on each other, let me twist the question a bit. What about a guy who doesn't have perfect vision, and he goes and has Lasik surgery done and improves his sight more than it ever was. He certainly didn't "earn" the better eyesight, so why should that be allowed then? As one poster claimed, medical surgery is okay and allowed in his thinking because it gets the player healthy and back to his peak performance level that he had "earned". So what about Lasik surgery, a player doing that certainly wouldn't "earn" better eyesight, would he?

But someone taking something like androstenedione, which I believe still is a perfectly legal over the counter supplement used to bulk up (what McGwire was taking before MLB banned it for player use), would get suspended and potentially banned from baseball if caught using it. If I understand it correctly though, you don't just take the andro' and then suddenly blow up and get huge muscles. I believe the person still has to hit the weight room and work out like crazy to build up those muscles, which sure sounds to me like that player has to work his ass off to "earn" those muscles.

Funny, MLB will allow Lasik surgery, which can give a player a totally "unearned" advantage, yet they won't allow certain supplements (that get lumped in under the PED blanket) where the player still has to work hard to build up themselves and at least partially "earn" that alleged advantage. Seems a bit arbitrary and misguided on MLB's part to my thinking. And possibly along the same line of reasoning used by one poster who questioned why players getting surgery are okay, but their use of certain legal supplements isn't. I can see where that person may have a valid point, and certainly didn't deserve to get attacked and jumped on by another poster who maybe didn't think things through quite enough before attacking! Hmmmmmmmmm!

+1

Lived in Missouri for several years while McGwire played for the Cards and I dont believe that he took anything that wasn't readily available, on the shelf, at his local GNC Store.

[ClementeFanOh]

BobC- don’t think we’ve ever talked, good to hear from you. I’m not going to “go postal”, not even close. Looks like I’m being grilled for one word- “unearned”. I think it’s pretty tough to die on the hill of one word out of an entire message, but if it helps I’ll try it your way…I know lots of people who’ve had eye surgery to improve their vision, and not always to 20/20 or however they designate it now. I also know lots of folks with great vision who are not MLB players. Again, MLB policy explicitly forbids PED usage and there’s reason for it. Their policy doesn’t forbid rotator cuff surgery or getting eyesight corrected from 20:200 to 20:40. The question of whether certain fans “ like” these PED guys, or not, is a separate issue. They took PEDs to give them a prohibited competitive advantage- period. There was no need to repair injury or, for example, get eyesight that is decent (20/20 is good vision not “enhanced” vision). The vast majority of PED guys knew they weren’t permitted and still did so. No “postal” notions at all Trent

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

BobC- don’t think we’ve ever talked, good to hear from you. I’m not going to “go postal”, not even close. Looks like I’m being grilled for one word- “unearned”. I think it’s pretty tough to die on the hill of one word out of an entire message, but if it helps I’ll try it your way…I know lots of people who’ve had eye surgery to improve their vision, and not always to 20/20 or however they designate it now. I also know lots of folks with great vision who are not MLB players. Again, MLB policy explicitly forbids PED usage and there’s reason for it. Their policy doesn’t forbid rotator cuff surgery or getting eyesight corrected from 20:200 to 20:40. The question of whether certain fans “ like” these PED guys, or not, is a separate issue. They took PEDs to give them a prohibited competitive advantage- period. There was no need to repair injury or, for example, get eyesight that is decent (20/20 is good vision not “enhanced” vision). The vast majority of PED guys knew they weren’t permitted and still did so. No “postal” notions at all Trent

Trent,

Exactly how does someone who goes to GNC to buy a natural supplement and then works out like crazy to build huge muscles while taking it have an unfair advantage over everyone else? It seems to me that everyone else could have gone to GNC and bought the same supplement and worked out like crazy as well to get bigger and stronger, if they wanted to. If they choose not to, that is there decision. It isn't really any different than one guy always taking extra batting or fielding practice to get better than someone else who doesn't. Except in this case you've got someone working out to get as big and as strong as they can. So what is the prohibited unfair advantage someone taking a natural supplement like andro' and then working out like crazy have, please tell me that?

As for the Lasik surgery issue, why are you dismissing it as not applicable? If someone doesn't naturally have good vision, they don't necessarily need to have surgery to medically enhance their sight to be able to live and play baseball. Yet if they decide to do it, they may be able to artificially enhance their natural ability by doing nothing more than having a purely elective, and otherwise unecessary, surgery. No working out, no extra practices, nothing. They didn't do anything to, as you say, "earn" the enhancement.

Now if you're saying that this is different because normal sight is considered 20/20, are you then saying that someone with 20/40 vision who goes to get Lasik surgery is doing it to simply put them on an even par with everyone who may naturally have 20/20 vision already, and therefore in your mind they aren't gaining an unfair advantage over anyyone else? They're simply correcting their sight unnaturally to be able to fairly compete with others. Is that your take? Because if so, it is hogwash. If that is okay to do Lasik surgery to get your eyesight to about where everyone else's is, then what about some naturally real skinny and scrawny kid who just isn't as muscular and strong as everyone else playing ball. Shouldn't he be allowed to take supplements and PEDs as well then to build up his body and strength, not to get an unfair advantage over everyone else, but merely to be more on par with them? Same logic. If you think the one enhancement is okay, then by similar logic the other enhancement should be okay as well.

And instead of going for just 20/20 eyesight, what if someone getting Lasik to play baseball even better decides they want to shoot for 20/10 eyesight? Now they really are trying to get an unfair advantage over everyone else, but I don't believe MLB will care or do anything to stop them from doing so, or punish them if you do.

So right back to the valid point that earlier poster pointed out about the possible hypocrisy and inconsistency by MLB in saying no to legal, over-the-counter supplements supposedly unfairly enhancing players, but yes to them allowing purely elective surgical procedures for other potential enhancements. Oh yeah, that logic makes a lot of sense to me!!! (Just like when MLB outlawed the spitball, but they grandfathered in anyone who had been throwing it prior to it becoming illegal to throw. That makes for a fair game for everyone also, right?)

And I've known lots of people who've taken supplements and worked out to improve their strength and bodies that don't play baseball. So I have no idea what your statement about lots of people with great eyesight not playing baseball has to do with any of this.

[jgannon]

I'm glad and it's great that Hodges was elected. Long overdue. To those who say he is a borderline candidate, I say he was a great consistent player. He hit over 20 home runs 11 years in a row, and over a 100 RBI's 7 years in a row. As to home runs, he hit over 30 four times and over 40 two times.

In 1954, when Willie Mays won the MVP, Hodges hit more home runs and had more RBI's than Mays. I'm not saying Mays shouldn't have been MVP. But Hodges in another year would very well have been the MVP.

Hodges as already stated, was a great fielder and won 3 gold gloves, and probably would have won more had the award existed earlier in his career. He lost a couple of years due to military service. Would he have developed as a player earlier either through the minors or in the majors? No one can tell, but if he had been in the majors, his stats would be higher. It may have taken him a couple of years to start really producing, but when he started, he put up great numbers.

As to this discussion not being had, had he not been a player in New York, the Dodgers were in 6 World Series when he played in Brooklyn (five, when he was really established). If his playing in Brooklyn was a factor in his being a HOF candidate, it should be, because he was a big factor in most of the Dodgers' 6 National League pennants from 1947 - 1956, and winning the the series in 1955. In the four World Series after 1952, Hodges hit .337 with 4 home runs and 16 RBI in 26 games. That included a go-ahead home run in Game 4 in 1955 as well as driving in both runs in Game 7 in 1955 to clinch the series.

It's a cheap shot to say the only thing he led the league in was games played and strikeouts. In 1951 in 582 at bats, he struck out 99 times. There have been other Hall of Famers who have had plenty more, the 99 was a career high for him, and it was the only time he led the league in strikeouts. Reggie Jackson led league in strikeouts 5 times, including 4 in a row with totals of 171, 142, 135, 161, and 156 respectively. In 2013, everyone's hall-of-famer-to-be Mike Trout, had 136 strikeouts in 589 at bats.

Finally, while the committee only considered Hodges' playing days, his being at the helm of the Mets' World Series win in 1969 is definitely something that should be considered in the Gil Hodges story. I lived through that, and the Mets' win was truly fantastic. That season, in my opinion is just as storied as the 1961 home run chase. The Mets were truly Amazin'.

It was a great day for baseball that Hodges was selected for the Hall. I'm happy for his wife and kids.

[ClementeFanOh]

jgannon- with you a hundred percent. THIS is what we should be discussing! Trent King

[G1911]

He would not have won the MVP in 1954 in a world without Mays. He finished 10th. Several other players had better years. He was never a serious MVP contender.

It is not a cheap shot to say he only ever led the league in games played and strikeouts. It is a statement of actual fact, relevant to the topic. High strikeout rates today have nothing to do whatsoever with Hodges performance in his time and place.

As to his post season record, it looks good when his poor performances are ignored. How about 1952 when he went 0 for 26? How about 1949? He was a .267 hitter in the post season. About the same as his regular season. His OPS percentages are lower in the post season. Which is to be expected, players do worse playing against the best teams, that’s normal. But this was an extremely misleading argument to cut out his poor series to make him look World Series great.

I said I’d vote for him on a combination of play and managing (but I’d vote for a lot of other guys on this logic as well, if the halls rules were up to me), but if a players argument relies on selective memory and cutting out poor performances, anyone one likes is a hall of famer.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

He would not have won the MVP in 1954 in a world without Mays. He finished 10th. Several other players had better years. He was never a serious MVP contender.

It is not a cheap shot to say he only ever led the league in games played and strikeouts. It is a statement of actual fact, relevant to the topic. High strikeout rates today have nothing to do whatsoever with Hodges performance in his time and place.

As to his post season record, it looks good when his poor performances are ignored. How about 1952 when he went 0 for 26? How about 1949? He was a .267 hitter in the post season. About the same as his regular season. His OPS percentages are lower in the post season. Which is to be expected, players do worse playing against the best teams, that’s normal. But this was an extremely misleading argument to cut out his poor series to make him look World Series great.

I said I’d vote for him on a combination of play and managing (but I’d vote for a lot of other guys on this logic as well, if the halls rules were up to me), but if a players argument relies on selective memory and cutting out poor performances, anyone one likes is a hall of famer.

EDIT: By the way I edited this post as you will see in the comment immediately following this one. The original post was much too incisive and unfair to you, and I apologize. The comments I make here are how I should have phrased things. All the best - Gannon

Just getting back to you here quickly. As far as the 1954 voting for NL MVP, my point was that his numbers were MVP-worthy. I looked up the voting and Kluszewski was the only player to hit more home runs than him, and have more RBI's. Johnny Antonelli, the pitcher came in 3rd in the balloting. All of these players had great years in their own way. To say that Hodges wasn't a serious MVP candidate wasn't really his fault. There is some subjectivity involved here.

Regarding Hodges' WS play, anyone can have a bad series, during the season or in the post season, against strong teams or weak teams. Sure, Hodges had a .267 average if you take in all of his games. Mantle's WS average was .257. Maybe Mantle with his .298 lifetime average, and having a number of seasons with more than 99 strikeouts shouldn't be in the HOF, smh. The point is Hodges had some great World Series hitting .364, .292, .302, and .391 in 1953, 1955, 1956, and 1959 respectively. Yep, 1952 was a disaster. But Hodges didn't let that affect him going forward - which is the mark of a pro and a champion. And he contributed significantly to the Dodgers becoming champions in '55.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Just getting back to you here quickly. You can spin this anyway you want. As far as the 1954 voting for NL MVP, my point was that his numbers were MVP-worthy. I looked up the voting and Kluszewski was the only player to hit more home runs than him, and have more RBI's. Johnny Antonelli, the pitcher came in 3rd in the balloting. All of these players had great years in their own way. To say that Hodges wasn't a serious MVP candidate is a smear, and it's a remark which is just as subjective as the voting that goes into selecting the MVP.

It's a cheap shot again, when you insinuate that Hodges in part, did poorly in WS play, because he was playing against "the best". Anyone can have a bad series, during the season or in the post season, against strong teams or weak teams. Sure, Hodges had a .267 average if you take in all of his games. Mantle's WS average was .257. Maybe Mantle with his .298 lifetime average, and having a number of seasons with more than 99 strikeouts shouldn't be in the HOF smh. The point is Hodges had some great World Series hitting .364, .292, .302, and .391 in 1953, 1955, 1956, and 1959 respectively. Yep, 1952 was a disaster. But Hodges didn't let that affect him going forward - which is the mark of a pro and a champion. And he contributed significantly to the Dodgers becoming champions in '55.

If you want to spin statistics negatively, that's your prerogative.

That 52 series for Hodges is interesting to me because it took all of a minute after watching series highlights to realize that he was pull off the ball (stepping in the bucket) on every swing. You would think that an experienced coaching staff would have seen that and said something (even without the help of video). Anyway, glad he's in the Hall and I'm assuming that he's the last of those great Brooklyn Dodgers to get in (anyone want to push for Carl Furillo?). LOL

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

EDIT: By the way I edited this post as you will see in the comment immediately following this one. The original post was much too incisive and unfair to you, and I apologize. The comments I make here are how I should have phrased things. All the best - Gannon

Just getting back to you here quickly. As far as the 1954 voting for NL MVP, my point was that his numbers were MVP-worthy. I looked up the voting and Kluszewski was the only player to hit more home runs than him, and have more RBI's. Johnny Antonelli, the pitcher came in 3rd in the balloting. All of these players had great years in their own way. To say that Hodges wasn't a serious MVP candidate wasn't really his fault. There is some subjectivity involved here.

Regarding Hodges' WS play, anyone can have a bad series, during the season or in the post season, against strong teams or weak teams. Sure, Hodges had a .267 average if you take in all of his games. Mantle's WS average was .257. Maybe Mantle with his .298 lifetime average, and having a number of seasons with more than 99 strikeouts shouldn't be in the HOF, smh. The point is Hodges had some great World Series hitting .364, .292, .302, and .391 in 1953, 1955, 1956, and 1959 respectively. Yep, 1952 was a disaster. But Hodges didn't let that affect him going forward - which is the mark of a pro and a champion. And he contributed significantly to the Dodgers becoming champions in '55.

No need to apologize, sir.

I’m 1954, Hodges was 3rd in MVP votes among only Brooklyn Dodgers. Snider was clearly better. WAR puts Hodges even with Reese, though they are very different type seasons and take lots of subjective views to compare value. WAR puts Hodges 10th in the league, same as his MVP finish. Kluszewski was clearly better. He wasn’t a serious MVP candidate, he had an excellent season. He had no first place votes. Modern metrics paint the same story as his traditional stats. It is an excellent season, the kind of season a hall of famer puts up. But he was not a serious MVP candidate.

My point about the WS is not that Hodges performance was poor, or that it should keep him from the hall. It’s that his performance is misleading when his poor series are cut off, like any dataset showing only a players best instead of the overall. He performed overall about the same or a little worse than he did in the regular season. This is true for most players, even Mickey Mantle doesn’t hit as good against the best team as he will against the whole league. Mickey Mantles hall of fame credentials are not built on his post season performance. Mantle leading the league in strikeouts does hurt him, but he led the league in lots of good things lots of times whereas Hodges never once did. Hodges series play is not a detriment, also not much of a credit.

I would not vote for Hodges as a player. I would not vote for Hodges as a manager. I would vote for Hodges on a combination of both; if it was my hall of fame I’d select him as a lower tier nominee. I’d vote for other players on this premise too. The Hall isn’t supposed to combine resumes, but the Veterans Committees probably do. I don’t think Schoendienst, for example, got in solely as a player without any thoughts about his second life in baseball.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

jgannon- with you a hundred percent. THIS is what we should be discussing! Trent King

Yeah, Trent. I know many people look at it the way we do. Appreciate the comment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So, and this is a genuine question, how do we condemn PEDs but tolerate amphetamines which were rampant in the Mays Mantle Aaron era?

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So, and this is a genuine question, how do we condemn PEDs but tolerate amphetamines which were rampant in the Mays Mantle Aaron era?

I think there is a significant difference between a drug that changes the physical composition of your body in a profession based on physical strength and physical coordination from a drug that gives you some additional energy when your ass is dragging a little, but appreciate that’s a line that someone can poke holes in fairly easy. Hitting home runs is physical strength plus mental focus, so the line does get blurry quickly.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So, and this is a genuine question, how do we condemn PEDs but tolerate amphetamines which were rampant in the Mays Mantle Aaron era?

Mike Schmidt admitted taking them, too.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

+1

Lived in Missouri for several years while McGwire played for the Cards and I dont believe that he took anything that wasn't readily available, on the shelf, at his local GNC Store.

McGwire admitted taking steroids:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607

The andro bottle in his locker, IMHO, was intentionally placed there to make people think he was taking legal stuff and sidestep the rumors of his steroid use.

[Kutcher55]

Not a fan of Schilling as a person but I think he definitely should be in. Albert Belle not quite. Only a 40 career WAR not that WAR is everything. But Gil Hodges had a career 44 WAR and was a borderline candidate despite his non player accomplishments and fame. It’s an easy nope for Albert Belle.

[jingram058]

Do the 1955 Dodgers win the World Series without Gil Hodges - - - the ONLY Brooklyn World Series Championship? And another question, and more inportantly - - - do they win that Series without Johnny Podres?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Not a fan of Schilling as a person but I think he definitely should be in. Albert Belle not quite. Only a 40 career WAR not that WAR is everything. But Gil Hodges had a career 44 WAR and was a borderline candidate despite his non player accomplishments and fame. It’s an easy nope for Albert Belle.

Belle averaged 40 homers every 162 games. He has a career 144 OPS+. Only player to have 50 homers and 50 doubles in a season - and did it in a shortened year. That year, he was the first player to have 100 extra base hits in a single year since 1948 - and, again, shortened season. He hit 48+ homers while hitting over .300 three times. Played 10 full seasons in the majors and hit 373 homers over those 10 years - the last of which he was playing with a debilitating injury and two of which were strike-shortened.

All he's missing are the counting totals and those are only missing because he had a career-ending injury a la Sandy Koufax, Kirby Puckett, and Addie Joss.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Belle averaged 40 homers every 162 games. He has a career 144 OPS+. Only player to have 50 homers and 50 doubles in a season - and did it in a shortened year. That year, he was the first player to have 100 extra base hits in a single year since 1948 - and, again, shortened season. He hit 48+ homers while hitting over .300 three times. Played 10 full seasons in the majors and hit 373 homers over those 10 years - the last of which he was playing with a debilitating injury and two of which were strike-shortened.

All he's missing are the counting totals and those are only missing because he had a career-ending injury a la Sandy Koufax, Kirby Puckett, and Addie Joss.

If Albert Belle was anyone except Albert Belle he would be a no-brainer. He's being punished for his personality/temper. Transport the same stats onto a popular Yankee or Dodger lol and he would have been in from day one.

[G1911]

Belle played 10.5 seasons. His career totals pale in comparison to the numerous sluggers of his time. For a guy whose whole argument is peak performance, his black ink is not very high, 28, 1 point over average. He never really deserved an MVP either, another hallmark for short-career-big-peak selections.

I'd vote for Belle, but I see a valid argument against him and would rank him a low-end hall of famer. Whether a player is likable or not seems mostly irrelevant to the Hall. Belle, Kent, Schilling all deserve to be in regardless of what one thinks about their choices outside of baseball, their personalities, or if their political views align with ones own.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If Albert Belle was anyone except Albert Belle he would be a no-brainer. He's being punished for his personality/temper and corked bats. Transport the same stats onto a popular Yankee or Dodger lol and he would have been in from day one.

FYP

Of course I guess some will argue that corked bats shouldn't count against a player.