Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HOF-Totality of the Career-Hodges

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • yanks0714
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Hodges was a good, but not HOF caliber, player. Mark is right that other than that 1969 World Series with the Mets Hodges never did a thing as a manager. That team was certainly a big surprise (probably the biggest ever this side of the 1914 Braves), but that was more a flukey performance than something Hodges can be given lots of credit for. What basically happened for the Mets that year is three young pitchers matured (Seaver, Koosman, Gentry), every other one of their pitchers did just a little better, and two okay players had career years (Cleon Jones and Tommy Agee).

    Plus, they got really lucky (overperformed Pyth. by 8 games). The success of the 1969 Mets is not put squarely on the shoulders of Gil Hodges, in fact he probably had little to do with the team's success. I'm willing to give him some credit for that but not enough to put his below HOF level career to HOF level.
    Truth is that the Mets maybe shouldn't even have been in the Playoffs. Leo Durocher burned out his players on the Cubbies, created an argumentive and split squad environment with cliques, and did a lousy darn job of managing. The Cubs had a better team but they folded and the Mets overtook them. I always felt the Cubs lost the Division more than the Mets won it.
    Then, in the first ever playoffs the Mets beat a better Braves team.
    Of course, in the WS they beat what many thought was an unbeatable Orioles team.
    How much credit did Gil Hodges deserve? Probably some. But overall he was pretty much an unsuccessful Manager in MLB.
    And, no, he doesn't deserve the HOF. He was a good player but not great or even very good. He was only about the 5th best player on those great Brooklyn teams. They could have survived losing Hodges more than they could have survivied losing Snider, Reese, Robinson, Campanella, or Newcombe. Maybe even Furillo, Roe, and Cox.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Just to be clear, I don't think that even had Fregosi won the 1993 World Series he'd be a HOFer and I don't think that even with the 1969 crown, Hodges does either. They were both darned good players, and probably both were above average managers.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --Hodges is more famous than Fregosi for reasons that have little to do with their relative merits. He was a good (although never close to the best) player on a winning NYC team. Which, not coincidentally, was the last (and much sentimentalized) generation of Brooklyn Dodgers. He also won his lone pennant in NYC.
    Are you saying that there is a New York bias at play here?

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Hodges may well have been a better manager than Fregosi. That doesn't make him a Hall of Fame manager, or anything close to it. Fregosi WAS a better player than Hodges though. Oddly that is masked by his playing his best years for a 60s expansion team - the same disadvantage Hodges had as a manager.
    --Hodges is more famous than Fregosi for reasons that have little to do with their relative merits. He was a good (although never close to the best) player on a winning NYC team. Which, not coincidentally, was the last (and much sentimentalized) generation of Brooklyn Dodgers. He also won his lone pennant in NYC.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    That's like saying Herb Score would have been a better pitcher than Warren Spahn had he not gotten hurt. I certainly feel for Hodges horrible untimely death, but it's not right to add more longevity on to his managerial career because he would have managed longer had he not died.
    You missed the point here. You said Fregosi had better longevity, more winning seasons and such. Well that had less to do with managerial skill, and more to do with the fact that he had more opportunity. Why did he have more have more opporunity? Because Hodges died. I'm not giving Hodges extra credit for things he didn't do, I'm just putting into perspective how it's unfair to say a manager was better because he had better longevity due to more opportunity. If you want to make a skill argument, that's one thing, but skill has nothing to do with why Fregosi has more longevity than Hodges.

    In fact, a more accurate comparison would be percentage of winning seasons. Hodges was 3/9, while Fregosi was 5/15. So both managers had winning seasons 33.3% of the time. HOWEVER, Hodges actually won a World Series (Fregosi only won a pennant), and Fregosi never had to manage an expansion franchise in the 60s. So Hodges has a number of losing seasons on his record that he, nor any manager for that matter, could do anything about. Such was life with a 60s expansion franchise.

    So in sum, Hodges is the better manager because:

    - He actually won a World Series
    - Proportionally he had just as many winning seasons as Fregosi, which is schewed because...
    - Unlike Fregosi, Hodges managed an expansion franchise in the 60s, in which losing records were inevitable. However, the team actually improved each year Hodges was at the helm, and then had a huge dropoff the year after he left. Coincidence that a team would continually improve and then severely drop after Hodges left (to manage another team that would improve under his watch)? I don't think so.

    We are in agreement about one thing though...Hodges managerial career is not enough to push him into the Hall. Though I wouldn't not object to his being in the Hall as a player (though I am in no rush at all to put him, and am just as ok with him not being in).
    Last edited by DoubleX; 01-23-2006, 10:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX
    Well it's easy to have better longevity when Manager A dies and Manager B does not, wouldn't you say?
    That's like saying Herb Score would have been a better pitcher than Warren Spahn had he not gotten hurt. I certainly feel for Hodges horrible untimely death, but it's not right to add more longevity on to his managerial career because he would have managed longer had he not died.

    Hodges managerial record, for the most part, is saddled with seasons spent with the exansion Senators for 5 seasons, in which the team improved each year that Hodges was at the helm, and then one year with the woeful Mets, before '69 happens. '69 is followed by two more winning seasons, and then Hodges dies before the '73 season.
    They did improve under Hodges every year, but it didn't appear they were going anywhere anyway. THey did much worse once Hodges left. I guess you could say that wouldn't have happened if Hodges was still there, but is there any evidence of that? I don't know.

    IMO, it's not a very fair comparison at all to base this discussion on longevity. To me, the fact that Hodges improved an expansion each year that he was its manager, and then was at the helm when the Mets made history, says a lot about his skills as a manager, and perhaps if his tenure was not unfortunately cut short, this comparison would be moot.
    I have no doubts HOdges was probably a pretty good manager. So was Fregosi. It doesn't make the difference and make him a HOFer. My post was in response to Johnny who basically said it was ridiculous to compare the totatility of Hodges' career to Fregosi's. It was already said by Mark that Fregosi was probably a better player than Hodges, so I just came in to say it's not so clear Hodges was a better manager than Fregosi either.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Fregosi also has much better longevity as a manager than Hodges, with more wins and way more years managed. He also has a better winning percentage and more teams over .500. Fregosi also has become an executive over the last few years I believe, whereas Hodges never did anything in baseball after his managerial years (because of his untimely death). Not that I want Fregosi in the Hall, but he would have a better case than Hodges does.
    Well it's easy to have better longevity when Manager A dies and Manager B does not, wouldn't you say? Hodges managerial record, for the most part, is saddled with seasons spent with the exansion Senators for 5 seasons, in which the team improved each year that Hodges was at the helm, and then one year with the woeful Mets, before '69 happens. '69 is followed by two more winning seasons, and then Hodges dies before the '73 season. It's also worth noting that the Senators, after improving each year under Hodges' watch, regressed by 11 games the year after he left, and fell 4 spots in the standings. I think it's safe to say that Hodges had a positive impact on his teams.

    IMO, it's not a very fair comparison at all to base this discussion on longevity. To me, the fact that Hodges improved an expansion each year that he was its manager, and then was at the helm when the Mets made history, says a lot about his skills as a manager, and perhaps if his tenure was not unfortunately cut short, this comparison would be moot.
    Last edited by DoubleX; 01-23-2006, 09:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by johnny
    Upon reflection, I was probably being a little harsher than I should have on Fregosi. I had forgotten he had won a GG at all and recalled that Hodges had multiple GG (six or so), was a good hitter, and had played on better teams.
    But after your comment on Fregosi I have to admit he is a better player than my initial reaction warranted (you have to understand I am coming down off the Seahawk high so some of my commentary sounds a little like I am on meth:gt )
    But with all that, Hodges is borderline when you even go totality of the career and I can't get too upset either way.
    Not only was Fregosi clearly a better player than Hodges but he may have been a better manager as well. He managed the 1993 Phillies (a surprise team just like the '69 Mets) all the way to the World Series (though they lost). Looking at that team, it appears more managing was needed and perhaps Fregosi was a key part of the team's turnaround.

    Fregosi also has much better longevity as a manager than Hodges, with more wins and way more years managed. He also has a better winning percentage and more teams over .500. Fregosi also has become an executive over the last few years I believe, whereas Hodges never did anything in baseball after his managerial years (because of his untimely death). Not that I want Fregosi in the Hall, but he would have a better case than Hodges does.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnny
    replied
    ooops

    Upon reflection, I was probably being a little harsher than I should have on Fregosi. I had forgotten he had won a GG at all and recalled that Hodges had multiple GG (six or so), was a good hitter, and had played on better teams.
    But after your comment on Fregosi I have to admit he is a better player than my initial reaction warranted (you have to understand I am coming down off the Seahawk high so some of my commentary sounds a little like I am on meth:gt )
    But with all that, Hodges is borderline when you even go totality of the career and I can't get too upset either way.
    Last edited by johnny; 01-22-2006, 09:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Unlike some commenters here, I give Hodges a reasonable amount of credit for leading the Mets to the pennant in 1969. I also agree that nobody was going to win much with those Senators teams. Still managers get credit for winning - and blame for losing - failry or not. Hodges only had one season where he won anything.
    --It is perhaps unfair to compare Fregosi and Hodges. To which man its unfair is questionable though. Fregosi played 18 seasons, making 6 All Star teams. He had a 113 OPS+ to Hodges 120 - but he was mostly a SS and that 113 is much more impressive for a SS than 120 is for a firstbaseman. Fregosi wasn't a historically great defensive SS, but he was pretty good (winning a GG in 1967) and even a merely adequete SS has more defensive value than a top fielding 1B. Like Hodges, Fregosi has a career losing record as a manager, but he has been successfull in more than one season. I'd say JIm Fregosi is every bit as qualified for the Hall of Fame as Gil Hodges. Of course, that doesn't make Fregosi a guy I'd want to campaign for or think should be in.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnny
    replied
    age old question-how much credit

    In regards to managing the Senators in the 60's, I'll use the old line about even if you had John McGraw as your manager, Joe McCarthy and Casey Stengal as your base coaches with Walt Alston as the bat boy, those teams were not going anywhere.

    In regards to the Mets, I do give someone 'some' credit for taking a team that no one expected to win and managing them to the win as opposed to the Yankees of recent vintage that can afford pretty much what they want. Were the Mets lucky, well over a 162 game schedule luck is also the residue of a lot of good decisions. It's easy to see in hindsight the greatness of Seaver, Koosman, McGraw, et al. But all the experts at the start of the season were not picking the Mets to do anything special.

    But hey, I am not saying that he should be in just cause of the 69 team. Far from it. But with all due respect, lets not start comparing the totality of a career of a Gil Hodges to a Jim Fregosi. Sheesh. h

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by KCGHOST
    Doesn't it bother any of his supporters that they are at least ten retired 1B's with better claims to the HoF than Hodges??
    Go try telling the Brooklynites Hodges wasn't the player Dick Allen was.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --I don't really have a problem with combining cases if the man is very close in both aspects. A guy like Hughie Jennings or Frank Chance, who were a little short in either role (IMO), are good examples of what I'm looking for in a composite candidate. Joe Torre would be a good modern example, except he was both a better player and a better manager than Hodges.

    Leave a comment:


  • KCGHOST
    replied
    I really dislike the idea of combining playing performance with managing performance when neither is HoF worthy to say that overall the guy IS an HoFer. To me it is one or the other, but not both. Had Hodges not died so tragically he would not be getting a whiff of the HoF.

    Doesn't it bother any of his supporters that they are at least ten retired 1B's with better claims to the HoF than Hodges??

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    The more I think about Hodges, the more I have him on the outside of the Hall. He definitely had a very nice career, but it just wasn't quite good enough. Adding his managerial career to the mix doesn't really make a difference either. It's unfortunate that his time was cut short so early due to his untimely death at age 48, but there really isn't enough to go on for him as a manager. I'm inclined to agree with the others that he was there when the Mets caught lightning in a bottle, and I don't know how much of that should be credited to Hodges' leadership.

    That being said, I wouldn't be upset if he were put in the Hall, and he wouldn't be the worst selection. There is an aspect about many Hall of Famers that has something to do with who they are and there place in the game. Along these lines, I think Hodges has a pretty good case for being in the Hall as I think a lot of people have a certain sentimality for him that's just not there for a lot of players, including most Hall of Famers.

    Strictly on the numbers though, I have Hodges around 20-25th all-time for first base. Based on when he retired, I'd have him somewhere in the 7-10 range. I think that's just outside Hall of Fame quality.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X