Wonderful news. Great day for baseball.

I've been waiting for this for years. So happy!

Jeff G.

Why do you suppose Ted Williams did what he did to keep Hodges out of the HoF years ago? Hodges seemingly had such a great reputation, being well liked, but did Williams have a grudge against him? Or against Campanella, whose vote he threw out on that technicality?

Glad that the wrong has been righted. Hodges deserved induction years ago.

gil hodges
 

I posted on the Hall of Fame selection thread. I was extremely happy to see that Gil Hodges finally made the Hall Of Fame. Growing up in New Jersey in the late 1940s and 1950s the Dodgers were a fixture on WOR Channel 9. The Boys of Summer now have five starters in the HOF, Reese, Robinson, Campy, Duke and Hodges. I am sure that Doris Kearns Goodwin who wrote that classic Brooklyn Dodger story, Wait 'Till Next Year, is very happy. I remember that it was in that book where she mentioned that Gil's parish priest asked his parishioners to pray for an end of his slump as recalled in an earlier comment. Not only an extremely good baseball player on a very good team but a fine human being.

I don’t think it’s that Williams was being mean or didn’t like one of them. The rules at that time mandated him to make that ruling; all votes had to be cast in person in the rules. As Chairman (or whatever the formal title was, I forget), Williams simply ruled to follow the rules. I don’t think that should have been the rule, but I think Williams gets a bad rap here.

Since Campenella was unable to make it due to health reasons, they should have had an alternate to bid in his place then. Not doing so was unfair to all the candidates, and a poor move by whoever was running things and made the rules, and not on Williams. And that was extremely disrespectful to Campenella as well, not letting his votes count like that, and him being so ill.

Will be weird to see Ortiz - who failed a steroid test - get into the Hall but Clemens and Bonds - who didn't fail one - not get in despite being significantly better players.

I think it would be more than a little naive to think that the committee ignored Hodges' accomplishments (though they're actually pretty lacking other than 1969) as a manager.

Lots of gil cards for sale on ebay omg

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.

Interesting results. Surprised so many got in, but I'm happy for them all. I'm not really in the HOF should be a super exclusive club crowd.

Happy these guys, and by proxy, their families are finally recognized.

Little sad for Dick Allen. .912 Lifetime OPS, 156 OPS+. Those are eye-popping stats for a non-HOF'er. Missed by 1 vote. I think I'd swap out Oliva or maybe even Jim Kaat if it would get Allen in.

Always had a soft spot for Kaat though. I remember being amazed as a kid at his 16 Gold Gloves during his short stint with the Yankees (I know, I know, doesn't mean quite as much as a pitcher...unless of course you've had Jon Lester on your team for awhile). He's also one of my favorite baseball announcers of all-time.

Kaat is definitely a candidate to me, of taking a guys entire history in baseball as a consideration (Bill White anyone? another great ex-Yankee announcer LOL!, among other things).

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.

Now that Gil Hodges has been selected for induction, I feel like a toy balloon that has had all the helium let out. It has been a thing for me personally for a long time. Should I now devote all of that interest and energy on Dick Allen? Who else should I root for?

Albert Belie

Yeah, there's a great guy to root for. Like rooting for Curt Schilling. Great guy, well liked by all. Who really cares that he fires a baseball at a kid who had the gaul to ask for an autograph.

Tommy John...for the combination of his pitching and the surgery that bears his name. I suppose one could argue that Dr Jobe should be the one in the Hall, but someone had to have the guts to say, “Sure. Go ahead and try that on me.”

For the record, I think the Hall is watered down. However, given where the current bar is set, I think Tommy John should be in. Plus, like Gil Hodges, he’s a native Hoosier. [emoji41]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lifelong Cleveland fan here, and I don't remember this story. I remember him hitting the heckling A-Hole who taunted him about a kegger.

Nope, definitely not perfect, no question, but easily has HOF credentials as a hitter.

That's correct. Belle had a well-publicized stint in rehab for alcoholism, which is the backstory for the incident.

That, of course, does not excuse throwing the ball at the guy.

You're quite right about his on-field credentials, though.

Why are performance enhancing drugs taboo, but performance enhancing surgical procedures celebrated? Seriously, what's the difference? Both use modern technologies to give one athlete an advantage over another.

Gil Hodges/Tommy John
 

'Why are performance enhancing drugs taboo, but performance enhancing surgical procedures celebrated? Seriously, what's the difference? Both use modern technologies to give one athlete an advantage over another"

Mark S- I hope I'm missing your sarcasm, truly... if not, the answer to your
question is that surgical repair fixes injury that prevents an athlete from
competing at their earned level. PEDs give the abuser an advantage they
didn't earn or possess in the first place. PLEASE tell me it was sarcasm, renew
my faith...

Trent King

Generally true, but I have heard anecdotal reports of young kids getting Tommy John as a prophylactic measure before they actually need it. Like "get it out of the way now" kind of logic.

If Tommy John surgery can add a few MPH to a pitchers' fastball, that gives him an advantage he didn't "earn."

As far as the Hall of Fame debates, and performance technology, give cortisone to Smoky Joe Wood and take it away from Sandy Koufax, and their peak careers might have been the inverse of each other.

Gil Hodges/Tommy John
 

Mark S- So, you weren't being sarcastic. Wow... How do you counter the
fact that PEDs are explicitly forbidden by MLB policy? Can't wait for that tap
dance to begin... Physician approved surgery and PEDs are NOT the same
animal. Trent King

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! :D

+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.

Hodges etc
 

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

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.

Hodges
 

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

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.

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

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.

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.

It's a slippery slope, in my opinion. But of course nobody here is going to condemn Mantle or Mays but we love to trash Bonds and ARod, so we'll find a way to distinguish.

Its also eyesight, bat speed, and hand-coordination among other possible things. You can be as strong as you like, but if you can't get the bat on the ball, nothing is leaving the park. I'd even venture that overall strength is nowhere near the most important factor in hittin HRs. Take someone like Jose Ramirez as an example.

Don't disagree at all. I'm sure a large percentage of the male population 16-35 is strong enough to hit home runs, just not talented enough.

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.

Mike Schmidt admitted taking them, too.

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.

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?

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.

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.

So what's dragging down his peak metrics, I see his WAR7 isn't even that impressive despite what certainly APPEAR to be quite a few massive years even in context? He seems to have walked a decent amount, so that doesn't seem to be the drag as it was for guys like Garvey etc.?

One problem is his atrocious defense. Or at least WAR thinks it is pretty bad.

He led in runs once, homers once, slugging twice, OPS+ once (but OPS twice). RBI's 3 times but I think that has more to do with hitting where he did in that stacked Cleveland lineup than anything.

He crossed a 140 OPS+ 6 times. OPS and OPS+ are really his best statistic most favorable to him. The problem is tons of other players did too during that period. The 90's offense stats are so extreme at the top end that it really hurts players like Belle.

In 1993, Belle posts a 145 OPS+, .922. But 5 players in the AL crossed 1.000.

In 1994 he has a 194 OPS+, absolutely amazing. But Thomas posted a 212.

1995, again amazing but bested by two guys.

1996, again beat by 5 guys while his year looks video-game like.

1998, he leads in OPS and OPS+, but his horrible defense (at least by WAR's view) hurts and other similar offense seasons by better defensive players or playing valuable positions. WAR likes Jeter better, among a couple others, which looks kind of ridiculous to me. A-Rod probably deserved the MVP that year, but he finished 9th and Belle 8th.

I don't think Belle's WAR is that bad, he ranks above other similar players who played more than him (thinking of Juan Gonzalez first). His rate statistics are extremely good for a career, because he was done at 33, the first year he wasn't great. But my missing counting stat years and poor left field defense, his WAR ends up less impressive. Looking at things, I think it gets him pegged about right, relative to others on the whole (some specific years and comparisons, no. I'd take him over Jeter 10 times out of 10 in 1998). His best years pegs him at 5-7 something, really good all-star, but probably not he best player. Which I think is generally accurate.

He suffers in WAR7 additionally because it's WAR7 and not WAR5. Belle has 5 years over a 4.0 total. Good but not that good years at 3.4 (1999) and 2.5 (1991) are included in his WAR7. His top 5 are 7.1, 7.0, 5.7, 5.7, 4.7. Those 5 years are 30.2 war, an average of 6 a year and 75% of his total career value, even counting his negative defense. The smaller the sample size, the better Belle looks.

Personally, I think this is a good lower barrier for the Hall of Fame. Guys who were really, really, really good for a few years and guys who were pretty good and decent for a really, really, really long time. Sutton, Kaat, Belle and Oliva make for a pretty good low threshold for the low tier of the Hall. But you know what opinions are like...

Hodges, et al
 

BobC- Okay, I tried it the nice way and you decided to write a chapter of
War and Peace, mixed in with pretzel logic in favor of your guy McGwire, and
others. Bottom line is there are clearly prohibited PEDs that some of these
dudes took in secret, knowing they shouldn't, for competitive advantage that
was mostly to get their 300 foot flyouts, to be 350 foot homers. Period.
That's not "hogwash", it's what they did and they knew it was prohibited.
You can fool yourself into thinking that having 20 whatever eyesight instead
of eye glasses, is somehow a competitive advantage- whatever gets you
through the night.

Peter Spaeth- the old "amphetamines" argument... So some player took a
pill that replaced 6 cups of coffee (that's an estimate, by the way) and that's
the equivalent of the "clear and the cream"? No, it isn't. Don't recall Hank's
head(!) growing larger during his playing career from the amphetamines (if
it's true). I do remember taking No Doz and drinking "Jolt" Cola during exam
week in college, so I could stay up to study during finals week. I vaguely
remember it causing me to use the bathroom frequently and give me the
shakes, like I was a toy poodle. It did NOT somehow make me "smarter" for
finals- feel free to insert joke here about my intelligence. However, to
compare HGH to a caffeine pill is like comparing a Vespa to a Ferrari. Nope.

Trent King

PS- And the original point still stands, I'm glad Gil Hodges made it!

The amphetamine margin in sports
V G Laties, B Weiss
PMID: 7286248
Abstract
The amphetamines can enhance athletic performance. That much seems clear from the literature, some of which is reviewed here. Increases in endurance have been demonstrated in both humans and rats. Smith and Beecher, 20 years ago, showed improvement of running, swimming, and weight throwing in highly trained athletes. Laboratory analogs of such performances have also been used and similar enhancement demonstrated. The amount of change induced by the amphetamines is usually small, of the order of a few percent. Nevertheless, since a fraction of a percent improvement can make the difference between fame and oblivion, the margin conferred by these drugs can be quite important.

Similar articles

Yeah amphetamines don't do shit. Our heroes were clean!!

Amphetamines have several performance-enhancing qualities, experts say. The drugs can disconnect mental from physical fatigue, allowing an athlete to push through tiredness. There's also a cognitive enhancement, which can help in learning playbooks or developing strategy. There's also the effect of offsetting high travel demands and jet lag for frequent-flying athletes.