Gil Hodges

[Snapolit1]

Can’t find it, but there was a great Hodges story I saw once about some Mets player had to bail on an appearance one winters night at a Temple in Brooklyn and Gil caught wind of it and he and his wife got dressed and walked over so someone would be there to represent the Mets.

[jingram058]

When will it be decided?

I keep reading that he's on a ballot, but when will it be voted on or otherwise decided?

[egri]

Originally Posted by jingram058

When will it be decided?

I keep reading that he's on a ballot, but when will it be voted on or otherwise decided?

Per Wikipedia, the voting will be on December 5th, but it doesn't say when the results will be announced.

[keithsky]

Tied of the HOF making up committees all the time to get different people in the hall. If you didn't make it in the first 10 it's over. Just my 2 cents.

[Yoda]

Just one more nice, small nugget about Gil: I believe he is one of the few players ever to hit four homers in one game. If he isn't elected on this, I guess, his final go around, perhaps all Net 54 members should gather for one day in Cooperstown to protest his lack of enshrinement. Isn't that the great American way to demonstrate peacefully? I would go as I am retired and have bags of spare time. Aren't there some great card shops in Cooperstown?

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by egri

per wikipedia, the voting will be on december 5th, but it doesn't say when the results will be announced.

6:00 est.

[Tyruscobb]

If these players’ contemporary voters, who watched them play their entire careers, didn’t think they were hall-of-fame worthy, why should modern voters, who never actually saw them play, now find them worthy?

I agree there are exceptions, especially if racism or other factors kept a worthy player out, but if these factors weren’t present at the original time, modern voters should not reweigh these players’ worthiness worthiness when the contemporary voters, who were in the best position to decide, said no.

Just my two cents.

[Jobu]

Another Hodges photo.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

If these players’ contemporary voters, who watched them play their entire careers, didn’t think they were hall-of-fame worthy, why should modern voters, who never actually saw them play, now find them worthy?

I agree there are exceptions, especially if racism or other factors kept a worthy player out, but if these factors weren’t present at the original time, modern voters should not reweigh these players’ worthiness worthiness when the contemporary voters, who were in the best position to decide, said no.

Just my two cents.

You would think this would be correct, but then you can find clear examples of oversights. The best one might be that Arky Vaughan had to go in through the veterans, and you can make an easy case for him being the second best shortstop ever still to this day, more than 35 years after he finally went in.

You may have only been talking about these particular guys, but we can find plenty of worthy 19th century players still and the people who covered them didn't get a chance to vote on them. An example would be Bill Dahlen, who SHOULD finally get in tomorrow. The guy ranks more valuable than Derek Jeter as a shortstop in NY, yet Jeter went in first ballot with all but one vote and all anyone can wonder is why he didn't get that vote. How about wondering why a better player who retired 110 years ago can't get in? That's why the veterans committee is necessary.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I agree there are exceptions

I agree with what you say about players' peers evaluations in their time and after for enshrinement.

However, I feel Gil Hodges is perhaps the most egregious oversight out there, the single most glaring exception.

[Snapolit1]

https://www.gilhodgesfilm.com/