Gil Hodges

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

'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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

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.

Trent King

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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.

[ClementeFanOh]

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

[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

[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.