Jumping Ahead: Next Year's VC

[Brad Harris]

Since we've done this with the BBWAA ballot, I'm curious who people think should be elected by the Veterans Committee next year. Of course, it's difficult to project ballots without, at least, the lists of 200/60 names the Historical Overview Committee is currently working on. However, why don't we just put in our own lists. So here are the rules...

(1) For players, consider that anyone who's final season was 1985 or earlier will be eligible for this election, provided they played at least 10 seasons. List those candidates you believe should be elected to the Hall of Fame. (No more than 10.)

(2) For managers, executives or umpires, consider that anyone who's last season was 2002 or earlier, or has retired since and is at least 65 years old, will be eligible for this election.

For those needing help thinking of possible candidates, here's (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/2005_LIST.htm) the 2005 HOC's list of 200 players and here's (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/2003_LIST.htm) the 2003 HOC's lists of 200 players and 60 "composite" candidates.

Remember that there are two VC elections next year.

Curious what your lists are. Here's mine:

2007 VC Players Election
Dick Allen
Ken Boyer
Wes Ferrell
Bill Freehan
Joe Gordon
Carl Mays
Tony Oliva
Joe Torre
Ron Santo
Jimmy Wynn

2007 VC Composite Election
Daniel "Doc" Adams (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=639&pid=16943)
Buzzie Bavasi
Charlie O. Finley
Whitey Herzog
Bob Howsam
Billy Martin
Marvin Miller
Walter O'Malley
Billy Southworth
Dick Williams

[KCGHOST]

I can't imagine the current VC electing anybody. They have elected no one in their last two attempts.

As for me I'd elect Santo from the players list and no one from the composite list.

[jalbright]

Though I can't argue with KCGhost that at least no player is likely to get in through this VC, I'd nominate Dick Allen, Bill Dahlen, Joe Gordon, Stan Hack, Bill Freehan, Larry Doyle, Bob Caruthers, Tony Mullane, Jack Glasscock and Vern Stephens among the players. I'm going to go with a short list on the other group: Marvin Miller, Lefty O'Doul, Walter O'Malley, Billy Southworth, Billy Martin, Dick Williams and Whitey Herzog.

Jim Albright

[Freakshow]

They should just do it like the regular HOF voting: Leave on the ballot any player receiving more than 5% last time and fill in the rest with new retirees.

Results of last vote:


Player *Votes ** Pct**

*Gil Hodges *52 *65.0%
*Ron Santo *52 *65.0%
*Tony Oliva *45 *56.3%
*Jim Kaat *43 *53.8%
*Joe Torre *36 *45.0%
*Maury Wills *26 *32.5%
*Vada Pinson *23 *28.8%
*Luis Tiant *20 *25.0%
*Roger Maris *19 *23.8%
*Marty Marion *16 *20.0%
*Ken Boyer *15 *18.8%
*Joe Gordon *14 *17.5%
*Carl Mays *12 *15.0%
*Minnie Minoso *12 *15.0%
*Dick Allen *12 *15.0%
*Curt Flood *10 *12.5%
*Wes Ferrell ** 9 *11.3%
*Mickey Lolich ** 9 *11.3%
*Don Newcombe ** 8 *10.0%
*Sparky Lyle ** 7 ** 8.8%
*Elston Howard ** 6 ** 7.5%
*Bobby Bonds ** 4 ** 5.0%
*Rocky Colavito ** 4 ** 5.0%
*Thurman Munson ** 2 ** 2.5%
*Smoky Joe Wood ** 2 ** 2.5%

Drop off Munson and Wood and add Staub and Oliver.

No other players retiring in 1984-85 seem ballot worthy (not not all of the above are either.:rolleyes: ) This group includes Greg Luzinski, Tug McGraw, Amos Otis, Lou Piniella, Ken Singleton and Mike Torrez from 1984, and Larry Bowa, Mike Hargrove and Jerry Koosman from 1985.

[DoubleX]

The VC stinks in its present format. Of course, members of an elite club are going to be extremely leary of adding new members. The fact that it's only every other year makes it worse! For years the VC put in underwhelming and undeserving candidates (Rizzuto, Mazeroski, Bunning), with only a few exceptions (Mizes), but now that there are a number of deserving candidates on the outside looking in (Santo, Allen, Minoso, Torre) and a number more that will join the ballot in the coming years (Hernandez, Grich, Simmons, Whitaker), these deserving yet overlooked candidates will unlikely ever get their due. And it's truly unfair, given all the poor selections the old VC put in.

Hopefully, if this time the VC fails to put any players, the VC will be reformatted. The goal is to put players in, and those players that the idiot writers overlooked.

[Tigerfan1974]

2007 VC Players Election
Bill Freehan
Tony Oliva
Ron Santo
Mickey Lolich

2007 VC Composite Election
Whitey Herzog
Billy Martin

[leecemark]

--Considering Gil Hodges tied with Santo for top vote getter last time and I wouldn't support him, I be reluctant to campaign for more than one guy (and getting one guy elected would be an achievement as it is). The only other guys over 50% were Oliva and Kaat and they are both borderline IMO. Most of the guys other than Santo that I'd support are so far down in the vote totals that it would be hopelessly optimistic to think they really have a chance. At least Minoso has a shot with the Negro League vote (although he really should be considered primarily as a major leaguer).

[DoubleX]

Based on who was eligible for the last election (I don't know what new players might come along this time), I'd vote for:

Ron Santo
Joe Torre
Ken Boyer
Joe Gordon
Minnie Minoso
Dick Allen

I'd also consider adding Bob Johnson, Sherry Magee and Bill Dahlen to that list.

Will Bobby Grich be eligible for the VC in 2007? If so, then he's on my list.

Players that I'm on the fence about are:

Gil Hodges
Tony Oliva
Carl Mays
Sparky Lyle
Elston Howard
Bobby Bonds

Players that I would add to this list include:

Bill Freehan
Larry Doyle
Stan Hack
Vern Stephens

[KCGHOST]

Hopefully, if this time the VC fails to put any players, the VC will be reformatted. The goal is to put players in, and those players that the idiot writers overlooked.

I agree the VC will be reformatted, but I disagree about the goal. The goal is to select worthy candidates. You're right, I am being semantical.

One thing I will guarantee you is that if you took the top 100 posters at this site and have them vote on the candidates you will see that of the 20 players you listed at most one might get 75 "yes" votes. And I wouldn't bet on that.

[DoubleX]

I agree the VC will be reformatted, but I disagree about the goal. The goal is to select worthy candidates. You're right, I am being semantical.

One thing I will guarantee you is that if you took the top 100 posters at this site and have them vote on the candidates you will see that of the 20 players you listed at most one might get 75 "yes" votes. And I wouldn't bet on that.

That's actually what I meant when I said the goal is to "those players that the idiot writers overlooked," meaning that the VC should be an oversight committee for players that the writers missed (of which, there are at least a handful of deserving players).

[kramer_47]

There have been alot of mistakes made by the old oldtimers committee, one of the biggest was not putting Gil Hodges in the HOF. He was the best 1st baseman of the 1950's, he led all right handed hitters in home runs when he retired with 370, he won the first 3 gold gloves and could have won more if it was awarded from 1950-56. He was on 8 all star teams, hit 4 homers in a game and also hit for the cycle. He was the 1st baseman on 7 pennant winners( also 1 near miss oh that Bobby Thomson) and 2 world series winners.
He finished in the top 3-5 in 12 of the 15 years he was on the ballot, It is not hard finding Gil Hodges on the writers ballot he is always near the top, he was on the ballot from 1969-83. One of the reasons he wasn't elected was because he died so young in 1972, they wanted warm bodies being inducted, no doubt in my mind if he lived he'd be in the HOF now. Go check out this site and see how Gil did in each election, also check out the guys you like being judged by the writers that actually seen them play.
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/default.htm

[runningshoes]

I'm all for Allen and Santo.

[kramer_47]

Could you explain why Allen and Santo, Allen never got more then 16% from the writers Santo topped out at 43%. They were good, I saw both play, I think they both just fall shy.

[runningshoes]

The writers....

I trust most of the guys on this forum to select members for the hall, and I'm not saying that to be facetious. Most of the members here have a much better grip on the subject matter.

[kramer_47]

It is nice to know who you are talking to before you knock them down. I happen to have a very good grasp on the subject of the hall of fame and baseball in general having been a fan for over 50 years. People like to throw out names for the hall of fame without giving reasons why they belong. I'm here to have a serious discusion on hall of fame candidates, not to be looked down on when I ask why, the reason I asked why is I'd like to know if you know something I don't about the player or I missed something, that's how you learn.

[DoubleX]

It is nice to know who you are talking to before you knock them down. I happen to have a very good grasp on the subject of the hall of fame and baseball in general having been a fan for over 50 years. People like to throw out names for the hall of fame without giving reasons why they belong. I'm here to have a serious discusion on hall of fame candidates, not to be looked down on when I ask why, the reason I asked why is I'd like to know if you know something I don't about the player or I missed something, that's how you learn.

Hi Kramer and welcome.

I respect your opinion about Hodges and you provide good reasoning to back it up. We've actual had some discussion recently about Hodges in this thread. (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=38750) Please check it out if you want to see some or our recent thoughts on Hodges. Also, I'm sure no one meant your opinion disrespect, it's just that many of us have been coming on these boards for a while now and we've just discussed a lot of these players to death, especially the players that are just on the outside of the Hall (such as Allen, Santo, and Hodges). I think we sometimes take for granted that newer members aren't as familiar with a lot of the prevailing sentiments on these boards.

Now I should warn you...You asked for explanations from people, so be careful what you wished for in the rest of this post. :)

In respect to Hodges, I'm afraid you'll find that the majority of members here have Hodges just a tad on the outside of the Hall. The thread I linked was actually a discussion if Hodges should be in based on both his playing and managerial career, which suggests that at least some people don't believe his playing career was enough.

I personally lean towards Hodges being in, but I'm not too upset with him being out. In terms of being in, having what was at the time the record for homeruns by a righthander to that point is impressive. His fielding was certainly very good and would have won more Gold Gloves if the award was handed out. He did string together a number of very productive years with high HR and RBI totals. And he was part of some very memorable teams, and that kind of notoreity can often push a player over the top. However, (and you'll find that this is probably the biggest argument against him on these boards), is that his career OPS+ was only 120 and never peaked above 143. I think Hodges was better than his OPS+ suggests, but most people expect much better OPS+ from their Hall of Fame firstbasemen. Some will also argue that his RBI totals were inflated because he batted behind great table-setters (Robinson, Gilliam, Reese) and had very good protection (Snider, Campanella). I don't put much weight in that argument. Yeah, Hodges batted in a great situation, but he still had to be a good hitter to be there and put up the power numbers he did.

As a whole, I rank Hodges somewhere between 20-25 all-time for 1Bman, and probably about 7th or 8th when he retired (without counting 19th century players and Negro Leaguers). If I didn't count players that are not yet eligible for the Hall (Bagwell, Thomas, McGriff, McGwire, maybe even Thome, Delgado, and even Pujols), Hodges gets bumped up 4-7 spots. Even so, that only puts him in the mid-high teens.

As for position players I'd put into the Hall before Hodges, my list starts with Ron Santo. While I have Hodges around say 22nd all-time at 1B, I have Santo 5th all-time at 3B. How a player can be among the 5, or even 10 best ever at his position and not be in the Hall is beyond me. Since Santo is a 3Bman, he is held to a different standard (in which there isn't as much competition at the top for sluggers as there is at 1B). But even if we were to put them on equal footing, I'd still take Santo. Except for homeruns, Santo's numbers are across the board are better than Hodges, and he's close in homeruns too. That includes OPS+, where Santo has has a 125 OPS+ and had four seasons all higher than Hodges career best (Santo peaked at 164). If we view this in perspective of their position, Hodges OPS+ at 1B is fairly unimpressive, while Santo's is pretty darn valuable at 3B. Plus Santo was a terrific defensive 3Bman (at a more important defenisve position than Hodges' 1B) and put up his numbers in an era that heavily favored pitching. If Santo played in Hodges' era, Santo would probably have exceeded 400 homeruns for his career. Bottom line, all-around Santo is among the very best all-time at his position, Hodges is a bit further away at his position.

Dick Allen is another I'd take before Hodges. I have Allen ranked 10th among 1Bman. His numbers don't quite show it because league offense was depressed for much of his career by the pitching rules, but he was one of the best and most dominant offensive players in the game between the 60s and the 90s. His 158 OPS+ dwarfs Hodges 120, and again, Allen put up his numbers mostly in an era that was favored pitching.

I'd also put in Minnie Minoso before Hodges. Minoso does not get nearly as much credit as he deserves. Terrific all around ballplayer who lost a number of prime years due to segregation. Minoso could do it all. Hit for average, hit for some power, steal bases, and field well. He also wins the OPS+ battle against Hodges (130-120), and had a better peak than Hodges. There is all this talk now about retiring Clemente's number league-wide. I don't see why those same efforts aren't pushing the candidacy of Minoso for the Hall? Minoso has been overlooked for far too long.

I'd put Joe Gordon in before Hodges. Gordon was the premiere 2Bman in the game in the 40's and lost three of those prime years to service during WWII. He had great power for a 2Bman, and a good glove, making him, IMO, a more valuable player than Hodges.

I'd also put Joe Torre in before Hodges. Torre was a terrific catcher, then a very good 3Bman. He has a 129 OPS+ and except for homeruns, all-around better numbers than Hodges. Not only did Torre do that in an era that favored pitching, but given that he did it as both a catcher and a 3Bman, makes him a much more valuable player than Hodges, IMO.

Ken Boyer is someone else I'd probably induct before Hodges. I have Boyer in tail-end of my top 10 at 3B, and like I said, I can't fathom a Hall of Fame that at this point, does not at least have the 10 best eligible players at each position in it. Hodges has the better OPS+ in this case (120-116), but Boyer's is more valuable given his position, and there are much fewer players, IMO, who were all-around better at 3B than there are for Hodges at 1B.

Bob Johnson is someone I think I'd put in before Gil Hodges as well. He didn't make the majors until he was 27, and still managed to put up better numbers across the board than Hodges (except homeruns), and had a 138 OPS+.

I think Bobby Grich will be eligible for next year's VC, if so, I'd induct him before Hodges as well. Not only does he lead Hodges in the OPS+ deparment (125-120) but he does so as a 2Bman. A 2Bman that could do 125 is light years more valuable than a 1Bman that could do 120. Grich was also a very good fielder at a more important defensive position.

Hodges would probably be next in line for me at this point, though I imagine that people can impress upon me convincing arguments for any of the following being ahead of Hodges (in order by position): Bill Freehan, Wally Schang, Elston Howard, Thurman Munson, Norm Cash, Boog Powell, Larry Doyle, Vern Stephens, Bill Dahlen, Stan Hack, Bob Elliot, Heinie Groh, Frank Howard, Sherry Magee, Jimmy Wynn, Wally Berger, Cesar Cedeno, Tony Oliva, Dave Parker, Bobby Bonds

Then there are also a few players that have been dropped by the writers in recent years that I would put ahead of Hodges for the Hall when their time comes for the VC: Keith Hernandez, Darrell Evans, Lou Whitaker, Ted Simmons. There might be a few more as well, and certainly others that I hold in about the same regard as Hodges.

In all, I'd say not counting the players who are not yet eligible for the VC, Hodges is at the very end of my top 9-12 players on the outside looking in. That certainly puts him in company that is better than a decent number of Hall of Famers, but it also means I'm in no rush to particularly argue for his case.

[kramer_47]

Hi DoubleX
You give a very detailed and interesting view on who should and shouldn't be in the HOF. I respect your view, I can see you and probably many others here are Bill James disciples, and you gave alot of examples. Bill James created alot of new batting and pitching categories but some of them are bias towards 1st basemen and certain ballparks. I've been around along time almost 60 years, the hardest thing to do is hit a round ball with a round bat, I'm old school. I don't care what park your playing in you have your long homers that will go out of any park and your cheap homers. Should we call the 1954 World Series a do over because Dusty Rhodes hit his homers down the line in right field at the Polo Grounds. Does Bill James take into account how far the homers went or just the park it was hit in. I disagree with you that it was tougher to hit after expansion, Gil played in an 8 team league that wasn't diluted, after expansion there were 100 extra players who would have been out of baseball or in triple A. Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher but his best years were after expansion, I'm using this as one example, I believe he is no doubt hall of famer but look at the stats before and after expansion was he a no brainer in 1961. The other thing that should be looked at and really isn't by Bill James is contribution to your team winning, 7 pennant winners and 2 World Series wins is alot in a career. Some of the players you mentioned never won one championship, they had great individual stats but went home every year in the end of September with no ring. Gil batted from 4-7 so he wasn't always protected but he was clutch, just look at those 7 straight years with 100 or more rbi, he also held the record in the National league for grand slams until 1972. He was the best 1st baseman in the 1950's but that doesn't matter with Bill James. He was the leading righthanded homerun hitter of the 1950's, he was in the running for The Sporting News player of the decade with 8 others now in the HOF. He's always been at the top of the voting with the writers and veterans committee, while others mentioned haven't really come close except Santo last year, this must mean that people actually watched him play and aren't depending on all these new stats. Isn't Bill James the guy that told the Red Sox a few years ago that according to his stats they didn't need one closer they could do it with a 3-4 man committee, it was a disaster and they had one closer by midseason. DoubleX I respect your opinion based on all these stats, it is very interesting and really makes you think and look at stats differently, I hope you respect my old fashion opinion.

[DoubleX]

Hi DoubleX
You give a very detailed and interesting view on who should and shouldn't be in the HOF. I respect your view, I can see you and probably many others here are Bill James disciples, and you gave alot of examples. Bill James created alot of new batting and pitching categories but some of them are bias towards 1st basemen and certain ballparks. I've been around along time almost 60 years, the hardest thing to do is hit a round ball with a round bat, I'm old school. I don't care what park your playing in you have your long homers that will go out of any park and your cheap homers. Should we call the 1954 World Series a do over because Dusty Rhodes hit his homers down the line in right field at the Polo Grounds. Does Bill James take into account how far the homers went or just the park it was hit in. I disagree with you that it was tougher to hit after expansion, Gil played in an 8 team league that wasn't diluted, after expansion there were 100 extra players who would have been out of baseball or in triple A. Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher but his best years were after expansion, I'm using this as one example, I believe he is no doubt hall of famer but look at the stats before and after expansion was he a no brainer in 1961. The other thing that should be looked at and really isn't by Bill James is contribution to your team winning, 7 pennant winners and 2 World Series wins is alot in a career. Some of the players you mentioned never won one championship, they had great individual stats but went home every year in the end of September with no ring. Gil batted from 4-7 so he wasn't always protected but he was clutch, just look at those 7 straight years with 100 or more rbi, he also held the record in the National league for grand slams until 1972. He was the best 1st baseman in the 1950's but that doesn't matter with Bill James. He was the leading righthanded homerun hitter of the 1950's, he was in the running for The Sporting News player of the decade with 8 others now in the HOF. He's always been at the top of the voting with the writers and veterans committee, while others mentioned haven't really come close except Santo last year, this must mean that people actually watched him play and aren't depending on all these new stats. Isn't Bill James the guy that told the Red Sox a few years ago that according to his stats they didn't need one closer they could do it with a 3-4 man committee, it was a disaster and they had one closer by midseason. DoubleX I respect your opinion based on all these stats, it is very interesting and really makes you think and look at stats differently, I hope you respect my old fashion opinion.

Hi Kramer,

Nothing wrong with being old school and having a different perspective. I actually don't consider myself that much of a James disciple, but I do think that he has helped create some statistics that make it easier to compare players across generations. The old school approach is nice, but sometimes I just feel like we need a little extra to make things clearer. For example, Pie Traynor hit .320 for his career, that seems pretty impressive, but when you consider that the league average was .295 during his career, that's not so impressive. So that's why I think the Jamesian stats can be useful...They kind of level the playing field because stastics can deceive sometimes.

But I do temper my approach with some old school approach - a homerun is a homerun, right? In Hodges case, if I went strictly by Jamesian methods of evaluation, I'd probably have him even lower in my rankings. I give him the benefit of the doubt though because he put up some tremendous power numbers for over decade, and because there are so many people that swear by how good he was. Unless it's the 90s, I can't ignore 11 straight seasons of 20+ homeruns, including 7 seasons of 30+ and two 40+, and a guy who retired with the most right-handed homeruns. Hodges was a legitimate power hitter and in all likelihood better than Jamesian statistics indicate, and I think people who analyze Hodges strictly through all those complicated statistics are probably missing something. I just think that between the Jamesian stats, and the old school approach, there are some players that are not in the Hall that were better than Hodges.

I wouldn't really mind Hodges being in the Hall, and if I was creating a Hall from scratch and able to induct 200 players of my choosing, Hodges just might make it.

Anyway...It's always great to have other perspectives. So welcome aboard!

[runningshoes]

It is nice to know who you are talking to before you knock them down. I happen to have a very good grasp on the subject of the hall of fame and baseball in general having been a fan for over 50 years. People like to throw out names for the hall of fame without giving reasons why they belong. I'm here to have a serious discusion on hall of fame candidates, not to be looked down on when I ask why, the reason I asked why is I'd like to know if you know something I don't about the player or I missed something, that's how you learn.

Sorry, if I offended you, but I don't hold the writers in any sort of reverance and had I known you were a writer I may not have stated it in that matter, but, having said that, it doesn't change the way I feel. Would you be surprised to know I'm not the only one around here who feels that way about baseball writers?

Let's take Bruce Sutter as an example.

76% of you all of a sudden had an ephiphany that he belongs Cooperstown?

If he deserves it now, he deserved it five years after he retired, but for some reason the writers play the game as I believe you all did with Dick Allen.

You guys should be required to explain why you vote for the players you do. It would be nice if you could explain why you don't for borderline candidates but that's not realistic.

I really don't believe the writers should decide who get's in..sorry that's just how I feel.

As for Allen and Santo, a lot of dead horses get beaten around here. Just do a search..it's all been covered before.

[stan opdyke]

Very interesting discussion. If I may add my 2 cents, I would vote Hodges into the Hall.

First off, I must admit to bias. I am a Dodger fan and have been for a long time. Gil is a little before my time, though I do remember the tail end of his career with the Mets.

Gil was a very prodictive member of a great Dodger team. He hit for power and he drove in runs. Everything I have read about him suggests he was the best defensive first baseman in the Natonal League in the era in which he played. I don't think defense gets as much credit as it deserves in Hall voting, particularly on the corners. I remember reading that at the end of the 1951 season Jackie made a miracle play to get the Dodgers into the playoffs with the Giants on a line drive hit up the middle in the last game of the season against the Phillies. It is not too hard to imagine that Jack could "cheat" up the middle with a first baseman like Gil playing next to him.

I do believe that a criteria for Hall voting is how a player conducts himself on and off the field. On that score, Gil certainly belongs in the Hall. I have read much about Gil because I am a Dodger fan, and I have everything I have read about him has been exemplary.

If I had a vote on the VC, Gil Hodges, Ron Santo and Buck O'Neil would be in the Hall of Fame. I think those three belong in Cooperstown for what they have given to baseball.

[538280]

Gil was a very prodictive member of a great Dodger team. He hit for power and he drove in runs. Everything I have read about him suggests he was the best defensive first baseman in the Natonal League in the era in which he played. I don't think defense gets as much credit as it deserves in Hall voting, particularly on the corners. I remember reading that at the end of the 1951 season Jackie made a miracle play to get the Dodgers into the playoffs with the Giants on a line drive hit up the middle in the last game of the season against the Phillies. It is not too hard to imagine that Jack could "cheat" up the middle with a first baseman like Gil playing next to him.

You know why defense from first doesn't get much attention in HOF voting? Because it just isn't all that important. Certainly a good defensive first baseman can save you some runs, but the difference between the best defenders there and the worst is probably 20 runs at the most.

HOdges was supposed to be a fabulous fielder from first, and I don't doubt that he was. But his hitting for a HOF first baseman wasn't up to the standard. He had a 120 OPS+ in his career. Dick Allen had a 156. That's a 36 point difference. With firstbasemen, is fielding enough to make up 36 points of OPS+? No way. And Allen probably had more defensive value anyway because he played third for part of his career.

One thing Hodges people say is that he was regarded to be such a great player in his time. But was he, really? His performances in MVP voting is horrible. He only finished top 10 twice, and most years finished 5th or 6th in the vote on his own team. That means the writers of the time basically thought Hodges was the 5th best player on his own team. Looking at the team's performance, the Dodgers won before they had Hodges, they won while they had him, and they won after they had him. I think the team would have done just as well in the 50s whether Gil was there or not. Allen won an MVP award and finished 4th in 1964. He is 122nd all time in MVP shares, while Hodges doesn't even make the top 300. There's absolutely no reason to put in HOdges but not Allen.

I'm sure Gil was a great gentelman. Everything I've heard about him says the same. But, is that enough to put him in? The answer is no. There have been tons of baseball players who great men, that doesn't make them great players. The Hall is meant to honor the greatest baseball players of all time. If they were great men then fine, that's a bonus. But it shouldn't be enough to make a below marginal candidate like Hodges a Hall of Famer.

[Brad Harris]

[Hodges] finished in the top 3-5 in 12 of the 15 years he was on the ballot, It is not hard finding Gil Hodges on the writers ballot he is always near the top, he was on the ballot from 1969-83. One of the reasons he wasn't elected was because he died so young in 1972, they wanted warm bodies being inducted, no doubt in my mind if he lived he'd be in the HOF now. Go check out this site and see how Gil did in each election, also check out the guys you like being judged by the writers that actually seen them play.
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/default.htm

Gil Hodges finished in the top 5 in BBWAA voting in all but his first and his final two years. Jim Rice has finished in the top 5 in BBWAA voting in 9 of his 12 years on the ballot (and among the top 10 in the other 3 years.) Does this make him a Hall-of-Famer? No. It merely makes him a popular candidate. Popularity with the electorate is just that, not justification for induction in and of itself.

The idea that Hodges' vote totals were somehow hurt by his early death is inaccurate. The vote totals bear out quite the opposite result:

In the 1972 BBWAA election, Hodges was named on 161 of a possible 396 ballots (40%). He died that April. In the election immediately following his death, Hodges gained 57 votes even while the number of total ballots submitted was reduced by 16. To put this in context, Bob Lemon (+60) was the only other candidate to increase their total by more than 26 from 1972 to 1973. Hodges was a beneficiary of the "death effect." If anything it helped his candidacy. From his death on, Hodges' support never dropped below the 50% mark, whereas he had barely scraped 50% just once in his previous four years on the ballot (while he was alive.)

Hodges did receive a name recognition boost between his first and second years on the ballot (1969-1970) where he leapt from 82 to 145 votes, no doubt thanks largely to his being the manager of the World Champion Mets in '69. If Hodges death prevented him from winning more World Series titles as a manager, then that may be a point in favor of the idea that his premature death hurt his Hall chances. However, the BBWAA election is for players only and their accomplishments as a manager are not supposed to be taken into account, according to the voting rules. Individuals who excelled as both players and managers have been the jurisdiction of the Veterans Committee.

From 1969-83, Hodges was consistently among the leading vote-getters on the ballot. During that time, there is a long list of players who had fewer votes than Hodges, but built support before eventually being elected by the BBWAA. Luis Aparicio, Don Drysdale, Harmon Killebrew, Bob Lemon, Juan Marichal, Eddie Mathews, Robin Roberts, Duke Snider, Enos Slaughter, Hoyt Wilhelm, Billy Williams and Early Wynn were all elected by the voters, passing Hodges in the process.

Furthermore, the Veterans Committee, comprised of many sportswriters, executives and players from Hodges' era, saw fit to elect Richie Ashburn, Jim Bunning, Orlando Cepeda, Bobby Doerr, Nellie Fox, George Kell, Bill Mazeroski, Johnny Mize, Hal Newhouser, Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzuto and Red Schoendienst - guys who were contemporaries of Hodges on the BBWAA ballot - but not Hodges himself. If Hodges was such a great hitter/player, why weren't Ted Williams and Stan Musial screaming for his election by those Veterans Committees?

It should come as no surprise that the BBWAA's membership would be dominated by East Coast representatives and, it's reasonable to suppose that Hodges' 50-60% of the vote throughout most of his candidacy represents a strong admiration by local writers for him that wasn't shared by others around the nation. It apparently wasn't shared by his contemporaries, either, as the VC refused him admission also.

That Hodges has led the past two elections under the newly reconstituted VC is perhaps a function of the BBWAA being responsible for the creation of the ballot and the awareness of the VC voters that Hodges was a very popular candidate in the BBWAA elections. There simply aren't that many of his contemporaries among the voters to explain his current levels of support. It is difficult to imagine someone looking at his numbers in an encyclopedia and finding Hodges more Hall-worthy than a Dick Allen or a Ron Santo.

I believe Hodges' support will fall drastically (and deservedly so) once the "I followed the [i]Brooklyn Dodgers" generation has passed. Until then, it's up to the rest of us to safeguard the Hall from the kind of emotional appeals that seek to inter Hodges in Cooperstown.

[abacab]

I don't see how you can support Hodges for the Hall without also supporting Joe Adcock, Rocky Colavito, Norm Cash, Frank Howard, and several other first basemen and outfielders with similar numbers. If Hodges had played for any team besides Brooklyn (with the possible exception of the Yankees), no one would remember him today.

[leecemark]

--I think all the players mentioned by abacab were better than Hodges. Hodges main advantage over them is he played for a great (and highly romaticized) team in NYC. The other played for less successfull teams in smaller and less glamorous markets. Abacab's examples all played through the 60s and that depressed their numbers as well, but the more advanced metrics show them as superior. None of them have any shot at the Hall and Hodges deserves no more consideration.

[Freakshow]

I think it's significant that NOT ONE of the ten players with the most similar career stat lines to Hodges is in the Coop. The list from BB-Ref:

Norm Cash (932)
George Foster (921)
Tino Martinez (921)
Jack Clark (916)
Boog Powell (898)
Joe Adcock (895)
Lee May (894)
Rocky Colavito (893)
Willie Horton (888)
Roy Sievers (880)

Most of these are actually better than Hodges, since Hodges played in a hitter's park and era, which this list does not account for. Peak performance is also ignored here.

[stan opdyke]

You know why defense from first doesn't get much attention in HOF voting? Because it just isn't all that important. Certainly a good defensive first baseman can save you some runs, but the difference between the best defenders there and the worst is probably 20 runs at the most.

HOdges was supposed to be a fabulous fielder from first, and I don't doubt that he was. But his hitting for a HOF first baseman wasn't up to the standard. He had a 120 OPS+ in his career. Dick Allen had a 156. That's a 36 point difference. With firstbasemen, is fielding enough to make up 36 points of OPS+? No way. And Allen probably had more defensive value anyway because he played third for part of his career.

One thing Hodges people say is that he was regarded to be such a great player in his time. But was he, really? His performances in MVP voting is horrible. He only finished top 10 twice, and most years finished 5th or 6th in the vote on his own team. That means the writers of the time basically thought Hodges was the 5th best player on his own team. Looking at the team's performance, the Dodgers won before they had Hodges, they won while they had him, and they won after they had him. I think the team would have done just as well in the 50s whether Gil was there or not. Allen won an MVP award and finished 4th in 1964. He is 122nd all time in MVP shares, while Hodges doesn't even make the top 300. There's absolutely no reason to put in HOdges but not Allen.

I'm sure Gil was a great gentelman. Everything I've heard about him says the same. But, is that enough to put him in? The answer is no. There have been tons of baseball players who great men, that doesn't make them great players. The Hall is meant to honor the greatest baseball players of all time. If they were great men then fine, that's a bonus. But it shouldn't be enough to make a below marginal candidate like Hodges a Hall of Famer.

A few things. As I memtioned, I did not see Hodges in his prime, but I saw plenty of Allen. I grew up outside of Philadelphia. To say that Allen had more defensive value than Hodges because Allen played third base ignores the way Allen played third base. And left field and first base too.

Superior defense in any sport makes teammates better. One of the best defensive infields I have ever seen was the Mariners in 2001. David Bell at third could make plays down the line because he knew Carlos Guillen could cover ground in the hole at short; Guillen knew that Brett Boone could make plays up the middle and Boone knew that Olerud covered a lot of ground around first base. Bell, Guillen and Boone knew that all they had to do is get their throws in the vicinity of first base with Olerud over there. Substitute Allen for Olerud and the Mariner infield defense becomes a whole different animal. I bring up the 2001 Mariners infield because I suspect the Brooklyn infield with Billy Cox, Pee Wee Reese, Jackie Robinson and Gil Hodges played in much the same manner.

Dick Allen is on the short list of the best hitters I have ever seen. Edgar Martinez is on that list as well. I would not be opposed to either of them being in the Hall of Fame. If they get in, they are there because of what they did with the bat. Edgar gets extra points with me for being a role model on and off the field. Gil played nine innings of superior defense with his glove; neither Dick Allen, nor Edgar when he played third, could say the same

[DoubleX]

A few things. As I memtioned, I did not see Hodges in his prime, but I saw plenty of Allen. I grew up outside of Philadelphia. To say that Allen had more defensive value than Hodges because Allen played third base ignores the way Allen played third base. And left field and first base too.

Superior defense in any sport makes teammates better. One of the best defensive infields I have ever seen was the Mariners in 2001. David Bell at third could make plays down the line because he knew Carlos Guillen could cover ground in the hole at short; Guillen knew that Brett Boone could make plays up the middle and Boone knew that Olerud covered a lot of ground around first base. Bell, Guillen and Boone knew that all they had to do is get their throws in the vicinity of first base with Olerud over there. Substitute Allen for Olerud and the Mariner infield defense becomes a whole different animal. I bring up the 2001 Mariners infield because I suspect the Brooklyn infield with Billy Cox, Pee Wee Reese, Jackie Robinson and Gil Hodges played in much the same manner.

Dick Allen is on the short list of the best hitters I have ever seen. Edgar Martinez is on that list as well. I would not be opposed to either of them being in the Hall of Fame. If they get in, they are there because of what they did with the bat. Edgar gets extra points with me for being a role model on and off the field. Gil played nine innings of superior defense with his glove; neither Dick Allen, nor Edgar when he played third, could say the same

How do you feel about Keith Hernandez?

[stan opdyke]

How do you feel about Keith Hernandez?
The best defensive first baseman I have ever seen, and I have seen Vic Power, Wes Parker, John Olerud, JT Snow and some others I probably should remember. Good hitter too. I don't think he had as much power as Gil. HOF? I think I would say yes, despite the drug scandal. I would put in Gil before Keith Hernandez. Raffy I would say no after the steroid suspension. What is your opinion?

[leecemark]

--I'd take Hernandez ahead of every other eligible 1B, with the possible exception of Dick Allen. I'd take Palmerio aead of Hodges no question and probably ahead of Hernandez. The steroid hit probably cost him a shot at first ballot status, but it will be hard to keep 500 HR and 3,000 hits outside of Cooperstown.

[DoubleX]

The best defensive first baseman I have ever seen, and I have seen Vic Power, Wes Parker, John Olerud, JT Snow and some others I probably should remember. Good hitter too. I don't think he had as much power as Gil. HOF? I think I would say yes, despite the drug scandal. I would put in Gil before Keith Hernandez. Raffy I would say no after the steroid suspension. What is your opinion?

I'd put Hernandez in before Hodges because so many people attest to him being the greatest defensive 1Bman ever. Plus he could him pretty well too (129 OPS+). I'm glad you mentioned Olerud, his career is pretty similar to Hernandez's. Olerud is pretty underrated, but not quite a Hall of Famer, IMO.

I'm undecided on Raffy at this point. I really need to think about the steroids stuff more.

[csh19792001]

Based on who was eligible for the last election (I don't know what new players might come along this time), I'd vote for:

Ron Santo
Joe Torre
Ken Boyer
Joe Gordon
Minnie Minoso
Dick Allen

I'd also consider adding Bob Johnson, Sherry Magee and Bill Dahlen to that list.



You really, REALLY should add Dahlen. He's on of the top few greatest players not already in the BBHOF.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36518

[DoubleX]

You really, REALLY should add Dahlen. He's on of the top few greatest players not already in the BBHOF.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36518

If given the chance to put in all the players I feel should be in that are not in, I probably would put Dahlen in. However, if I was only allowed to put in one or a small handful, I'd pick at least the 6 players I named above before Dahlen, and I'd add Bobby Grich to that list as well if he is eligible for the next VC.

[538280]

A few things. As I memtioned, I did not see Hodges in his prime, but I saw plenty of Allen. I grew up outside of Philadelphia. To say that Allen had more defensive value than Hodges because Allen played third base ignores the way Allen played third base. And left field and first base too.

First, even a not so good defensive 3B has more defensive value than a very good defensive 1B. It's just the way things are. Third basemen play a much more important position and play a bigger part in the team's defense. That was especially true pre 1935, was still true in Hodges' era and Allen's era, and is still true today. Also, less offense is expected from third and thus Allen's numbers posted there were more valuable because he was creating more runs than the average 3B than he was over the average 1B.

Second, Dick Allen was not a horrible defensive 3B. He made lots of errors and thus got a bad rep because of that (his fielding percentages were low), but he did have good range. He always made lots of plays in the field. Craig Wright once wrote this about Allen's fielding:


From 1964 to 1967, Allen had more assists and started more double plays at third
base than any NL third baseman except Gold Glover Ron Santo. And that was true
even though a dislocated throwing shoulder kept Allen from playing 3rd base for
nearly half the 1966 season.

Chances Fielded Cleanly Per Game
1964-67 NL 3B (400 games, min.)
1) 3.40 Ron Santo
2) 2.84 Dick Allen
3) 2.81 Ken Boyer

That's two pretty good gloves to be sandwiched between, and that stat deserves to
be mentioned at least as much as Allen's poor .932 fielding percentage -- which,
incidentally, is better than Santo's fielding percentages over his first four seasons as
a professional third baseman. Allen may never have developed into a good third
baseman -- he never did throw as well after the injury to his shoulder -- but there
was no thought of moving him off third base until the 1967 hand injury that
damaged the nerves in his throwing hand, making it difficult for him to grip and
throw the ball accurately. That is why he ended up being moved to first base.

[DoubleX]

First, even a not so good defensive 3B has more defensive value than a very good defensive 1B. It's just the way things are. Third basemen play a much more important position and play a bigger part in the team's defense. That was especially true pre 1935, was still true in Hodges' era and Allen's era, and is still true today.

Second, Dick Allen was not a horrible defensive 3B. He made lots of errors and thus got a bad rep because of that (his fielding percentages were low), but he did have good range. He always made lots of plays in the field. Craig Wright once wrote this about Allen's fielding:

.

You're not helping your argument about Allen being "not a horrible defensive 3B" when you immediately follow that comment with "He made lots of errors and thus got a bad rep because of that (his fielding percentages were low)." Sounds to me that if he's making lots of errors, he is a bad defensive 3Bman. Having range is nice and all, but what good is range when you can't make the play anyway? His .927 fielding percentage at 3B is pretty attrocious and suggests that he was hurting his team there. I'm sure it's no coincidence, that he moved from 3B to 1B in mid-career. If he was such a good defensive 3Bman, or even adequate, the move would not have been made. Moreover, look who he was moved in favor of. Tony Taylor. We're not talking about a world-beater here, we're talking about Tony Taylor, who wasn't even a natural 3Bman; he was an aging 2Bman. Meaning the Phillies preferred to use an aging player with a different natural position than use Allen at 3B. Seems to me that the fact is that he could not hack it at 3B, so the team stuck him someplace else where he would do far less damage in the field.

[538280]

I'm sure it's no coincidence, that he moved from 3B to 1B in mid-career. If he was such a good defensive 3Bman, or even adequate, the move would not have been made. .

In the Wright quote it mentions how Allen was moved to first in his career becuase of hand injury, not because he couldn't handle the position.

And range is always the far more important defensive skill than fielding percentage (at the major league level. this is different in youth and high school). Look at Gold Glover Ron Santo. Allen was making about 15 more errors a season than him. 15 plays a year is definitely something, but the differences in range between Allen and other 3Bs is probably more than that.

BP shows Allen being 15 runs below average over four years at 3B. That's not a great 3B by any stretch, but a slightly below average 3B is still better than a good 1B.

[DoubleX]

BP shows Allen being 15 runs below average over four years at 3B. That's not a great 3B by any stretch, but a slightly below average 3B is still better than a good 1B.

I disagree entirely. Below average means he's not very good, he's in the bottom half of the league at his position, and it means he's likely hurting his team more than helping with his defense. It means that there is more than a 50% chance that the team could find someone better to play 3B who will not hurt the team as much defensively. So I'd rather take a 1B, who is helping a team defensively (albeit limitedly because he is a 1B) than a player at any other position that is hurting the team out there, unless that other player hits like Allen or Piazza or Hornsby. But in that case, I'd rather move that player to 1B (as was done with Allen), so I can maximize the strengths of my team by putting someone better defensively at 3B, while keeping Allen's bat in the lineup but at a position where he can do minimal damage defensively. Plus, I'd rather have a 1B that contribute positively defensively to the team than a 3Bman that contributes negatively defensively because 3B is a more vital position. The guy has more chances to make plays, so I want to make sure I have someone out there that can make the players, and not someone that is going to make a lot of errors.

[kramer_47]

I agree with you that Dick Allen was a horrible 3rd baseman, but disagree that you can put anyone at 1st base. A good 1st baseman like Olerud, Hernandez, Hodges or Vic Power saves alot of runs by scooping bad throws from short and third. They also know how to position themselves to cut the ball off or let it go through, 2 good examples of bad 1st baseman are Piazza and Jay Gibbons who didn't know what to do and cost there teams many runs. The idea a good 1st baseman isn't needed or you can put anyone there is really lame thinking, 15 errors at first is as bad as 15 errors at third, why not just play with 8 fielders if a 1st baseman is so unnecessary. The most putouts on the field is normally at 1st base if it isn't a big strikeout game, if your 1st baseman has range the 2nd baseman can cheat towards 2nd base, also if they are good they can cheat off the base on a close play. You need good fielders at every position, I coached fast pitch softball for 20 years, just as many games are lost at 1st as at 2nd or 3rd base if you have weak fielders at any of those positions.

[stan opdyke]

Allen was not a third baseman in the minors. He played in the outfield and by all accounts he did not play well out there. He was not a good outfielder in the major leagues. When Allen played third he needed a good defensive first baseman. Unfortunately, the Phillies did not have Keith Hernandez at the time.

I don't know why a below average defensive third baseman would have more defensive value to a team than a good defensive first baseman. I remember Steve Garvey playing third for the Dodgers. He was moved to first base and he was ok there, at third he was terrible. I don't think his defensive contribution to the Dodgers diminished when he switched positions, quite the contrary in fact.

[DoubleX]

I agree with you that Dick Allen was a horrible 3rd baseman, but disagree that you can put anyone at 1st base. A good 1st baseman like Olerud, Hernandez, Hodges or Vic Power saves alot of runs by scooping bad throws from short and third. They also know how to position themselves to cut the ball off or let it go through, 2 good examples of bad 1st baseman are Piazza and Jay Gibbons who didn't know what to do and cost there teams many runs. The idea a good 1st baseman isn't needed or you can put anyone there is really lame thinking, 15 errors at first is as bad as 15 errors at third, why not just play with 8 fielders if a 1st baseman is so unnecessary. The most putouts on the field is normally at 1st base if it isn't a big strikeout game, if your 1st baseman has range the 2nd baseman can cheat towards 2nd base, also if they are good they can cheat off the base on a close play. You need good fielders at every position, I coached fast pitch softball for 20 years, just as many games are lost at 1st as at 2nd or 3rd base if you have weak fielders at any of those positions.

Kramer,

I didn't meant to imply that you can put anyone at 1B, I more meant to say that you can get away better with an average fielder at 1B than an average fielder at any other position. For example, I'd love to see how the Red Sox get by with David Ortiz out there for a full season. If given the choice and all other things being relatively equal, I'd rather have a good defensive 1B than a poor one. However, if the poor fielding one hits like Dick Allen and the good fielding one hits like JT Snow, or even Gil Hodges (who is a huge step up from Snow but also a huge step behind Allen), I'm going to take Dick Allen in a heartbeat because defense, at least to me, is not all that important at 1B and I'd rather have the guy that is great offensively there.

[kramer_47]

Hi DoubleX
I understand what you're saying, if you had a Dick Stuart or Dick Allen you'd try to hide them at 1st base, it is the lesser of a bad situation. I want the best of both worlds, someone who can hit but also field, remember you need good fielding to go along with good pitching. You don't want every game to be a 9-8 slugfest, good hitters are very important but good pitching and fielding stops the good hitters. All winning teams have good pitching and fielding, its no coincident that the Dodgers and Yankees won so many pennants from the late 40"s to the 60's, and of course some decent hitters. Maybe thats why Dick Allens teams never won anything, they thought more about how many he could drive in(he only drove in 100 runs 3 times) then how many he'd give up in the field with his iron hands. You know DoubleX you need a well rounded team to win, nothing like a well pitched well fielded game, and of course you need a little luck.

[Freakshow]

and I'd add Bobby Grich to that list as well if he is eligible for the next VC.
See my post #4 above. I wrote:

add Staub and Oliver.

No other players retiring in 1984-85 seem ballot worthy (not not all of the above are either. ) This group includes Greg Luzinski, Tug McGraw, Amos Otis, Lou Piniella, Ken Singleton and Mike Torrez from 1984, and Larry Bowa, Mike Hargrove and Jerry Koosman from 1985.

Grich retired in 1986, is eligible for the VC in 2009.

[DoubleX]

Hi DoubleX
I understand what you're saying, if you had a Dick Stuart or Dick Allen you'd try to hide them at 1st base, it is the lesser of a bad situation. I want the best of both worlds, someone who can hit but also field, remember you need good fielding to go along with good pitching. You don't want every game to be a 9-8 slugfest, good hitters are very important but good pitching and fielding stops the good hitters. All winning teams have good pitching and fielding, its no coincident that the Dodgers and Yankees won so many pennants from the late 40"s to the 60's, and of course some decent hitters. Maybe thats why Dick Allens teams never won anything, they thought more about how many he could drive in(he only drove in 100 runs 3 times) then how many he'd give up in the field with his iron hands. You know DoubleX you need a well rounded team to win, nothing like a well pitched well fielded game, and of course you need a little luck.

Well I'd hope that I'd make up for fielding at the other positions. :)