Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

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

  • Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

    This thread is inspired by a discussion between Kramer_47 and abacab in the Richie Allen HoF thread... A lot of people say Perez was a bad selection for the Hall, and then there are a lot of people who say Hodges should be in the Hall. Who do you think was better (and not necessarily who was more Hall worthy)?
    44
    Tony Perez
    54.55%
    24
    Gil Hodges
    45.45%
    20

  • #2
    I dont know but im leaning towards Hodges for apparently no reason.....I'll get back to this.
    "I was pitching one day when my glasses clouded up on me. I took them off to polish them. When I looked up to the plate, I saw Jimmie Foxx. The sight of him terrified me so much that I haven't been able to wear glasses since." - Left Gomez

    "(Lou) Gehrig never learned that a ballplayer couldn't be good every day." - Hank Gowdy

    Comment


    • #3
      Tony Perez was basically Hodges with MUCH better longevity. Look at their relative stats, they were basically the same. But, Perez stuck around way longer and thus his rate stats are more impressive. He also played third part of his career which raises his value a bit as well, and was slightly better at his peak IMO.

      I think Perez was a marginal Hall selection who probably just barely deserved it. Hodges would deserve it too if he had that sort of longevity. But he doesn't, so he really has no business being brought up in Hall discussions.

      Comment


      • #4
        Being born in Brooklyn I have to go with Hodges. Perez to me was a terrible choice for the HoF and Hodges would be no better.
        Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

        Comment


        • #5
          Two very similiar players. Both Rh'ed power hitters, who hit for decent but not great averages, had reasonable OB skills, both were good fielders although Hodges rep is greater the fact that Perez played 3B pulls him pretty much even, and neither could run worth a lick. Both were on outstanding teams, surrounded by other great players.

          Hodges has bandwagon HOF support but I don't think he cuts it. Perez is in pretty much because the voters looked at him as having the most RBI's that was NOT in the HOF. So they put him in depsite the fact that RBI's are pretty much teammate dependant.

          So, which one is better? I have no idea. I'll read what others say and make my decision based on what I feel afterward.

          FWIW, I'm leaning toward Hodges though....

          Yankees Fan Since 1957

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by KCGHOST
            Being born in Brooklyn I have to go with Hodges.
            Wow, there's a great reason
            Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
            Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

            Comment


            • #7
              These guys are real close in my opinion. Perez hung on a while longer, but doesn't really gain much in my mind because of that. He wasn't really as asset in his decline years, other than for about 200 ABs in '85. Hodges had some decline time too and both are little better than their career numbers indicate. Both played for great teams and neither were ever the best player on their team.

              I'm inclined to take Perez because he had the better peak, IMO. The 3B time doesn't really help as Perez wasn't a good 3B while Hodges was a good defensive 1B. Many of you know my opinions on defensive adjustments in situations like this.

              Overall, very similar careers. If one should be in the Hall, the other should I guess. Only problem is that I don't think Perez should, so that's a no for Gil too.
              THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

              In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

              Comment


              • #8
                Don't forget that Gil also managed a team that was a vast underdog, and perenial laughing stock, to a World Series championship. Who knows how many more they could have won if he hadn't have died young. This fact coupled with his stats place him ahead of Perez IMO.
                unknown brooklyn cabbie " how are the brooks doin"
                unknown fan "good they got three men on base"
                unknown brooklyn cabbie "which one?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by theAmazingMet
                  Don't forget that Gil also managed a team that was a vast underdog, and perenial laughing stock, to a World Series championship. Who knows how many more they could have won if he hadn't have died young. This fact coupled with his stats place him ahead of Perez IMO.
                  I don't think his managerial record is relevant for the purpose of this thread.
                  THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                  In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    --Perez best years were better and he had more good years. Even if you don't think he added much value in his extra years, he has better career rate stats even with the drag down effect of those years.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by digglahhh
                      I don't think his managerial record is relevant for the purpose of this thread.
                      Sorry I confused this with another thread on a similar subject, too much coffee!
                      Last edited by theAmazingMet; 02-09-2006, 08:13 PM.
                      unknown brooklyn cabbie " how are the brooks doin"
                      unknown fan "good they got three men on base"
                      unknown brooklyn cabbie "which one?"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

                        Originally posted by leecemark
                        --Perez best years were better and he had more good years. Even if you don't think he added much value in his extra years, he has better career rate stats even with the drag down effect of those years.
                        You're not looking at the same stats I am his best years weren't better the only reason his stats are better career wise is that he played till he was 45.
                        But pound for pound head to head Gil Hodges beat him out in an era of 8 teams not the diluted expansion era.
                        Lets support Gil Hodges for The Hall of Fame, a true Hall of Famer.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 538280
                          Tony Perez was basically Hodges with MUCH better longevity. Look at their relative stats, they were basically the same. But, Perez stuck around way longer and thus his rate stats are more impressive. He also played third part of his career which raises his value a bit as well, and was slightly better at his peak IMO.

                          I think Perez was a marginal Hall selection who probably just barely deserved it. Hodges would deserve it too if he had that sort of longevity. But he doesn't, so he really has no business being brought up in Hall discussions.
                          Longevity??
                          Hodges played '43 - '63.
                          Perez played '64 - '86. 2 extra years.

                          Late in Perez' career he was with Boston for 3 seasons and split time as DH. DH can lengthen anyone's career. I think the Longevity argument is weak.

                          From what I was able to look up:
                          Hodges was in 7 WS and won 2.
                          Perez was in 4 WS and won 2.
                          I think that speaks to Hodges being a better player with a better team, if you want to discuss longevity.
                          1968 and 1984, the greatest ever.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            --Perez played in 700 more games and got 800 more hits. He also leads in every other counting stat. Arguing that he doesn't have an advantage in longevity is foolish.
                            --Counting up how many times a players team made/won to the WS as some sort of litmus test on their greatness is even more ridiculous. The Yankees won 8 pennants and 6 championhips in the 10 years Charlie Silvera played for them. Does that make him a Hall of Famer? Winning the pennant is a team accomplishment. Having great teammates doesn't make you a great player.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by leecemark
                              --Counting up how many times a players team made/won to the WS as some sort of litmus test on their greatness is even more ridiculous. The Yankees won 8 pennants and 6 championhips in the 10 years Charlie Silvera played for them. Does that make him a Hall of Famer? Winning the pennant is a team accomplishment. Having great teammates doesn't make you a great player.
                              Heck, they'd even tell us Ted Lyons, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Addie Joss, Jim Bunning, Ernie Banks, George Sisler, Nap Lajoie, Ron Santo, Luke Appling, Ed Delahanty, Harry Heilmann, Billy Williams, Elmer Flick, Chuck Klein, and Heinie Manush were no good. Not a SINGLE playoff appearance among those stiffs
                              Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                              Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X