HOF Golden Era Results

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted I am a little younger than you but yes as a teenager I saw Namath on TV including the Super Bowl. I doubt I knew the game well enough at that point to form a solid opinion at the time. An awful lot of "football people," though, support the claim that he was overrated. It makes for an interesting debate. To be clear I am not suggesting he wasn't a HOF quarterback, I am just questioning his status in some people's minds as one of the very few all time greats, most expensive post war rookie card, etc. etc.

[wolf441]

Going back to the Cooperstown voting. Dick Allen had pretty decent HOF stats, but was known as a cancer in every clubhouse that he was in.

He was his generation's Joey Belle (that's right, Albert - it's JOE-ey, JOE-ey, JOE-ey. God, I miss chanting that at Fenway ).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Going back to the Cooperstown voting. Dick Allen had pretty decent HOF stats, but was known as a cancer in every clubhouse that he was in.

He was his generation's Joey Belle (that's right, Albert - it's JOE-ey, JOE-ey, JOE-ey. God, I miss chanting that at Fenway ).

The Canseco "steroid" chants, with Jose responding by flexing his muscles, were good too.

[brian1961]

Dave Foster----

Hiya pal. I'm sorry I couldn't get back to you regarding those who had a sharp axe to grind upon Gil Hodges with regard to voting him into the Baseball Hall of Fame. I work mid-afternoon to midnight. So, now I shall elucidate. However, please, by all means, if I am mistaken Dave, or if any one of you chaps sees a mistake here, correct me. The light I throw upon the matter is not done with a smug attitude or smile, as it's very unpleasant and says volumes about human nature.

The two individuals who were on the Veterans Committee and had it in for Gil Hodges were Ted Williams and Earl Weaver.

Ted Williams was a very proud man. He was immensely proud of what he did with the Washington Senators in 1969, turning them around and producing their first winning record, by a large margin no less, in quite a few years. However, when the The Sporting News, at the time very prestigious and authoritative, announced their Manager of the Year Award for 1969, they selected Gil Hodges. Ted Williams was very irked by that. Moreover, some scribes wrote that it was Gil Hodges, and NOT Ted Williams, that had paved the way for the lowly Senators to move up to a higher plane.

For the uninformed, Gil managed the Senators from 63-67, and every year their record got better and better, with the last year showing 76 victories, a very creditable improvement.

Those comments about Gil Hodges being the one who really deserved the credit for the Senators' 1969 performance got Ted's pot boiling. In the ensuing years, under Ted's lousy managerial skills, the team just got worse and worse, and worse. The players could not stand Ted Williams. On the contrary, most of the Mets players loved Gil Hodges, and really mourned his untimely death of a heart attack in 1972.

Ted Williams had a very large ego, and I'm sure it's what helped drive him on to be one of the greatest hitters in the game's history. But his feelings smarted over the credit and acknowledgement that Gil Hodges received as a manager. So, once Ted was in a position on the Veterans Committee, he would always blackball Gil Hodges.

Let's now move on to the other man, Earl Weaver. As opposing managers in the 1969 World Series, the Weaver-led Orioles had decimated the American League that year, coming so close to topping the league record for victories held by the vaunted 1927 New York Yankees. Or was it the 1954 Cleveland Indians? Well, anyway, the Orioles were heavy favorites over the Gil Hodges-managed New York Mets, a cinderella team if there ever was one. As a Chicago suburbanite, I was a Cubs fan, not a Mets fan, by the way.

Well, you know most of the rest. After the Orioles won the first game, the Mets took the next four. It was all over for the Orioles, and Earl Weaver was denounced, while Gil Hodges was lauded. Perhaps the most galling episode in that series was when Gil Hodges showed the umpire the black shoe polish on the baseball that proved it had hit Cleon Jones. Jones is awarded first base. Brilliant! Next batter, Donn Clendenon, socks a home run! The Orioles were shot down again, and again, and again. Earl Weaver was humiliated.

But there was more.

In the following year, one of the best baseball all-star games took place. The National League had been on a roll, but the AL was strong and determined. Opposing managers? That's right. Gil Hodges versus Earl Weaver again. The National League had come from behind to tie it after nine innings, and so it was nail biting until finally in the twelfth, Pete Rose bowled over Cleveland catcher Ray Fosse and scored the winning run. To this day, I still remember the excitement of that play as I watched it on national TV. Maybe you saw it too.

Well, the same results echoed in the ears of losing manager Earl Weaver, for once again, the National League had come from behind to snatch another victory from the Americans. Again Gil Hodges was raised to the rafters, while Weaver was earning a reputation of championship decrepitude.

In the minds of many, all that was forgotten as the Orioles took it all that year over The Big Red Machine. Weaver would eventually win two Sporting News Manager of the Year awards. Still, the echoes of those smashing defeats at the hands of Hodges as his opposing manager rang in Earl's ears forever. Gil's premature death only meant that Earl would never have the chance to show that he could outsmart and out-manage Gil. Gil Hodges was a better manager than Earl, period.

However, Earl Weaver, when he became a member of the Veterans Committee, used all his power and influence to blackball Gil Hodges from being enshrined in the Hall---'til the day Weaver died.

There ya have it, Dave. Now that I've written it, I feel a bit depressed. There is so much truth in the saying, "the truth hurts."

Enough of my elaboration. Take care. ----Brian Powell

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Going back to the Cooperstown voting. Dick Allen had pretty decent HOF stats, but was known as a cancer in every clubhouse that he was in.

That's false. Allen's teammates - Goose Gossage and Mike Schmidt, to name two - and managers (Gene Mauch) all praised Allen as a teammate and competitor. The "cancer" thing comes from him taking the job of a white teammate early in his career and an ensuing fight that was not his fault.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Tabe

That's false. Allen's teammates - Goose Gossage and Mike Schmidt, to name two - and managers (Gene Mauch) all praised Allen as a teammate and competitor. The "cancer" thing comes from him taking the job of a white teammate early in his career and an ensuing fight that was not his fault.

I honestly never saw Allen play, but reading the below from Dave Fleming in 2008, he doesn't sound like an all out competitor.

Dick Allen, The Player



Looking only at his record, it is a little surprising that Dick Allen hasn’t been elected to the Hall of Fame. He won the 1964 Rookie of the Year and the 1972 AL MVP. He was a seven-time All-Star, a high .300 hitter with remarkable power. His career numbers suffer slightly because his prime years took place in an era of low offense, but by any reasonable measure Dick Allen was a great hitter.


Conservatively, Dick Allen was one of the top forty hitters of all-time. And that’s very conservative. He averaged 31.68 Win Shares per 162 games, which is higher than any first baseman except Lou Gehrig. Dick Allen won a few major awards and was the best offensive player in the game for ten years. His career line is a little low, but his peak is remarkable. His statistical record is the record of a Hall of Fame player.



Dick Allen, the Man



So we come to Dick Allen, the man. The debate about whether or not Dick Allen should be in the baseball Hall of Fame rests entirely on our interpretation of his personality, and how that personality influenced the teams he played on.



Bill James once wrote that Dick Allen “did more to keep his teams from winning than anyone else who ever played major league baseball.” In his Historical Abstract, Bill added that Dick Allen was the second most controversial player in baseball history, behind Rogers Hornsby.



Think about that for a moment: Dick Allen was the second most controversial player in history.



Here’s an exercise: write down a list of the most controversial players in baseball history. Ty Cobb would be on the list. Joe Jackson created a fair bit of controversy. Hal Chase: he was the Devil in a uniform. Babe Ruth generated a little bit of press, I suppose, and though it's forgotten now, Ted Williams was about as disliked as any player ever was. Joe Medwick almost caused a riot in the 1934 World Series and was nearly killed by a teammate. Reggie Jackson and Pete Rose had their moments. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are our current lightning rods.



I wasn’t around to follow Dick Allen’s career, but I have little reason to contradict Bill’s comments. And wherever Allen ranks among the most controversial players, there is no doubt that Dick Allen had a career filled with controversy. And you know what? A lot of that controversy is sort of ignored right now. It sure seems that accounts about Allen have undergone a kind of historical revision.



I’ll give you an example: the late Gene Mauch, Dick Allen’s former manager, was often asked about Allen. In those interviews Mauch made a concerted effort to describe Allen in a flattering light. He repeatedly called Allen the greatest player he ever managed, and when pressed to speak of Allen’s flaws, Mauch was quick to reject any suggestion that Allen wasn't a saint. If pressed hard, Mauch cites Allen’s chronic tardiness.


And you know what? Allen was chronically tardy. But saying so is a sort of half-truths: Allen was tardy because he was often stopping at bars before games to drink. And Mauch covered for Allen for years: time and time again Allen would miss games or get fined for causing trouble, and Mauch would explain everything away an innocuous excuse. Dick Allen has been fined for being late. Dick Allen isn’t playing because he has a sore body part. It wasn’t true. You get the sense, too, that Mauch wanted to be on the right side of history. He doesn’t want the teams he managed described as having any racial tensions. And to that end, he certainly wouldn’t want to voice any criticism of that team’s most visible black player.

Historical gerrymandering aside, I think Mauch’s motivations for making excuses for Dick Allen stemmed from the very best of human intentions: he wanted to protect Allen from fans who were exceedingly hard on Allen and a press that rode his ass from day one. It was an act of compassion for Mauch to say years later: “Dick Allen was always tardy,” when he really meant “Dick Allen had a serious drinking problem.” Compassion, sure, but it’s still a lie.



For those of us who didn’t follow Allen’s career, that sort of stuff is glossed over. How many of us know that Allen, eager to get out of Philly, started scratching notes in the on-deck circle. He wrote “Oct. 2” because it was the last day he’d have to wear the Philly uniform, and when the fans got on his case he wrote, “Boo.” It’s actually a little bit funny: he’d write stuff like “Mom” and “No,” and people in the stands would freak out. That’s hardly ever mentioned. He missed a doubleheader in 1969 because he was at the horse tracks, and then bitched and moaned when he was suspended. The suspension was lifted almost immediately, but Allen sat out 26 games, causing President Nixon to send Allen a message to start playing. When he came back, he insisted on his own private dressing room and made threats that ‘something would happen,’ if anyone complained. His manager quit in frustration when Allen refused to play an exhibition game against the Philly AA team.



All that crap is forgotten about. What is attended to, what is given weight in our considerations of Allen’s career, is the abuse he endured in 1963, as a member of the Phillies AAA team in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the similar abuse he endured from the Philadelphia fans and press. This stuff is brought up as a way to explain away Allen’s behavior, and to clarify the contexts of his times. The same holds true over Allen’s fight with teammate Frank Thomas: in the telling of the story, close attention is given to the racial overtones of the fight, to Thomas’s taunts about Cassius Clay and Malcolm X.



We strive, in this modern age, to understand contexts. We want to understand how Dick Allen became Dick Allen. It’s a reasonable aspiration, even a noble one. But it does Allen a disservice of sorts: by focusing on the circumstances that surrounded him, we deny the possibility that Allen had choices within those circumstances. He made the choice to be self-destructive. He made the choice to fight with Thomas, to chide Thomas and to rise to Thomas’s race-baiting. Allen had the talent to be an all-time great and he wasn’t. And as much as the world around him was set against him, he bears responsibilities for that failure.



I think Dick Allen is understood in two different ways, two conceptions that are separated by generational lines. Those of us who didn’t watch Allen, those of us who came along too late to see Allen and read the daily reports of his behavior, we grew up indoctrinated in the belief that context trumps character. That where we come from and what traumas we endure have a large role in shaping the kind of people we become. For this reason, we tend to think that Dick Allen’s failings are the failing of the larger society, while his successes are the triumphs of a courageous but flawed individual.



But those who did watch Allen, those who fought in a difficult war and endured the decade of social revolution that followed, they placed a greater burden on the actions of the individual. Life is hard, and the best we can do is use those hardships as motivations. Henry Aaron did that. Jackie Robinson did, too. So did Frank Robinson and Roberto Clemente and Larry Doby and Curt Flood and countless others. Dick Allen didn’t. Where the others strived for greatness, Dick Allen was content to sow discord and squander his ability. He should have been an all-time great, and he wasn’t. That was his choice.



I don’t know which interpretation is right, or if either one is completely fair. But the question about Dick Allen and the Hall of Fame is a hard question to answer, because it extends beyond simply statistical analysis. It encroached on the terrain of how we imagine we should live our own lives, and by what measure we judge the lives of others.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wouldn't call his peak "remarkable." Sure, his typical season of 30-90/95-.295 was very solid in the context of that time, but "remarkable"????

[KingFisk]

Interesting little article on philly.com today about Jim Bunning's experience at the Golden Era balloting session. The man sounds exasperated...

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...rfect_day.html

[SteveMitchell]

Interesting article. If I had been in Jim Bunning's shoes and working with guys who (in the past) had sent in blank BBWAA Hall of Fame ballots, did not ask questions or give comment on deserving players and otherwise served as a potted plant during the gathering, I would be disgusted, too. It is my view that the committee was almost doomed from the start, given its composition and the participation of its members.

As most know, Jim Bunning pitcher became Congressman (later Senator) James Bunning of Kentucky following his Hall of Fame pitching career. He is used to mixing it up politically and it sounds like he fought for Richie Allen (and possibly others) for the Hall of Fame. We need more fighters like Jim - in Washington and on behalf of Cooperstown worthies.

Originally Posted by KingFisk

Interesting little article on philly.com today about Jim Bunning's experience at the Golden Era balloting session. The man sounds exasperated...

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...rfect_day.html

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ted I am a little younger than you but yes as a teenager I saw Namath on TV including the Super Bowl. I doubt I knew the game well enough at that point to form a solid opinion at the time. An awful lot of "football people," though, support the claim that he was overrated. It makes for an interesting debate. To be clear I am not suggesting he wasn't a HOF quarterback, I am just questioning his status in some people's minds as one of the very few all time greats, most expensive post war rookie card, etc. etc.

I'll tell you from where I'm coming from. As a kid in the 1950's, I saw Sammy Baugh play (near the end of his career). Then I started following Johnny Unitas and Sonny Jurgensen.
Loved these guys.

When I returned to civilian life (Air Force 1960-64) I started following FB again and I took a liking to Len Dawson and KC....and, then the Jets when Namath arrived. I was regularly
kidded by my FB buddies for being a fan of the AFL.

But, I certainly had the last laugh in 1969 and 1970.

The 4 seasons from 1966 to 1969 (when Broadway Joe was healthy), the Jets had a 35 - 18 - 3 record. Namath was at his best; but, after those years his injuries preventing him
from continuing to have a really great career. Those big bruisers on the opposing teams were out to get him.....and, they did.


TED Z
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted I grew up in Washington, DC area. Jurgensen was phenomenal, an incredibly accurate passer. It is still incredible to me that George Allen started Kilmer over him at the end of his career when he could still play. The Redskins teams until the very end of Jurgensen's career were horrible. God only knows how far he could have gone with a decent team. The man could flat out throw. There is a story, probably apocryphal, that he was asked if he could hit a receiver in the eye at 40 yards. He asked, which eye?

PS After Sonny retired, when he was an announcer (a beloved one at that, a fixture of Redskins radio coverage for decades), my Dad had the good fortune of sitting next to him on a cross country flight out of DC. Sonny, shall we say, had a few, and apparently had some very choice things to say about being demoted to second string in favor of Billy Kilmer. I wish I had been there.

[brian1961]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1352646] There is a story, probably apocryphal, that he was asked if he could hit a receiver in the eye at 40 yards. He asked, which eye?

Peter, I've read virtually the same story, but it's not apocryphal. However, the story concerned a question asked to one of Sonny's predecessors, the beloved Sammy Baugh. ---Brian Powell

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ted I grew up in Washington, DC area. Jurgensen was phenomenal, an incredibly accurate passer. It is still incredible to me that George Allen started Kilmer over him at the end of his career when he could still play. The Redskins teams until the very end of Jurgensen's career were horrible. God only knows how far he could have gone with a decent team. The man could flat out throw. There is a story, probably apocryphal, that he was asked if he could hit a receiver in the eye at 40 yards. He asked, which eye?

PS After Sonny retired, when he was an announcer (a beloved one at that, a fixture of Redskins radio coverage for decades), my Dad had the good fortune of sitting next to him on a cross country flight out of DC. Sonny, shall we say, had a few, and apparently had some very choice things to say about being demoted to second string in favor of Billy Kilmer. I wish I had been there.

Peter

In 1973 and '74, I switched to following the REDSKINS (with Namath's injuries, the Jets were no longer a contender) to see Sonny Jurgensen play.

And, yes Kilmer was usually the starting QB then. However, by the 4th Q Kilmer would be in trouble and George Allen would send in Sonny. And invariably, Sonny would turn the
game around and save the day. Sonny's stats confirm this in that Sonny played in all 14 games in each of the '73 and '74 seasons.

Sonny would conduct his 5 - 15 minute drill in which he would zing to the left and to the right and down mid field the most precise screen passes to Larry Brown, Charley Taylor,
Roy Jefferson, Jerry Smith, etc.

Peter....I haven't seen the likes of Sonny and his passing accuracy in the NFL since those days. The REDSKINS were 20 - 8 in '73 and '74.

I would have given my T206 Wagner to have sat next to Sonny Jurgensen on a 6 hour flight


TED Z
.

[icollectDCsports]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I'll tell you from where I'm coming from. As a kid in the 1950's, I saw Sammy Baugh play (near the end of his career). Then I started following Johnny Unitas and Sonny Jurgensen.
Loved these guys.
TED Z
.

I've always loved the story that Jurgensen tells occasionally (although I'm not sure I recall all of the details) about the time he dined at Johnny Unitas's restaurant named "The Golden Arm" in the late '60s. Johnny thanked Sonny for coming up to Baltimore from DC and Sonny replied, "It's a pleasure -- and thanks for naming your restaurant after me." Ha!!!!