Gil Hodges

[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

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by mr2686

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

Not actually advocating for him but Newcombe has a ROY, CY and MVP. Gave two years service in his prime to his country. Was the 2nd or 3rd best hitting pitcher of all time and played two years in Japan with his pal Larry Doby AS AN OUTFIELDER where he outhit Doby. Just a super cool guy that seems to get lost some times.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Not actually advocating for him but Newcombe has a ROY, CY and MVP. Gave two years service in his prime to his country. Was the 2nd or 3rd best hitting pitcher of all time and played two years in Japan with his pal Larry Doby AS AN OUTFIELDER where he outhit Doby. Just a super cool guy that seems to get lost some times.

He was a great guy and I love him, but...

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jingram058

He was a great guy and I love him, but...

Pretty much what I said. I just gave specifics. Left out his two years in the Negro Leagues though.

Interestingly he's kind of the opposite of Reuschel. Has lots of black and grey ink but comes up short in the WAR metrics.

[triwak]

Because threads need cards. Just picked this one up.

[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 G1911

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.

Well hey, thanks. That's very nice of you to say.

Yeah, regarding the 1954 season, I was saying it was an excellent season, and as you say, the kind of season a Hall-of-famer has. I didn't exhaustively check out the other players or his stats vis-a-vis the other Dodgers. I was just saying that it could be an MVP year in general.

Regarding his World Series play, obviously his 1952 series was not good But after that, he consistently did well in the World Series. I think one can consider it from both points of view. I mean, even if one doesn't think Hodges is a Hall-of-famer, Hodges was a better player than how he played in the '52 series. 1952 is really a bit of a fluke. Yes, it happened, and brings his overall WS stats down. But he performed a lot better over a longer period of time following.

I was thinking that the Veterans Committee would take into account his playing and his managing career. But as you point out, I guess that they are not supposed to. I guess the Golden Era Committee wasn't supposed to either. At any rate, I obviously give Hodges' playing career more weight than you do. But in another way, we're not disagreeing, because I also think of Hodges' career as including his 1969 championship with the Mets. To me, it's an important part of his career. It definitely is a piece of the puzzle that makes Gil Hodges a Hall of Fame figure.