Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

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

  • #46
    Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

    Originally posted by digglahhh
    That's empty rhetoric and cliche, not evidence.

    You "grow up" quick in the military... well you also allegedly grow up quick when your parent(s) die when you're young. So can we assume that all players whose parents died when they were young had no problem developing emotional and mental maturity?

    If so, that's news to me. I lost my father when I was young. I was still running the streets, cutting school, attempting to avoid work by making my money "off the books" and getting into all kinds of perverse variants of the pissing contest. Several years later, I changed my life drastically, but it had nothing to do with my parent's death. Further, I know plenty of immature military men. I assume you forgot about the Abu Ghrab videos- not exactly beacons of maturity.
    I'm sorry to hear your father died when you were young, you need a guiding force in life you didn't have it. I'm sorry there wasn't an uncle or big brother there for you and you ran wild. In the structured life of the military and war situations like Gil was in you grew up quick if you already hadn't, Abu Ghrab I'd like to think was an aberration. We are here talking about how 2 1/2 years in the military retarded Gil's developement please don't compare Gil a hero in WW2 to those jerks at Abu Ghrab. It seems pretty obvious that losing that much time playing your sport had to hurt you. He would have played somewhere in 1944-45, the fact that he didn't had to push back his development.
    Lets support Gil Hodges for The Hall of Fame, a true Hall of Famer.

    Comment


    • #47
      --I served 10 years in the military. Like every other walk of life, there is no shortage of immaturity demonstrated there.

      Comment


      • #48
        Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

        Originally posted by leecemark
        --I served 10 years in the military. Like every other walk of life, there is no shortage of immaturity demonstrated there.
        You're probably right, but we're talking about Gil Hodges' service time here and how it hindered his development.
        Lets support Gil Hodges for The Hall of Fame, a true Hall of Famer.

        Comment


        • #49
          Actually, I knew Hodges served in the military for 2 years or so for a long time now, but, every once in a while, you need a kick to the head in order to get you to realize that two facts you have in your head are relevant to each other. Upon some preliminary consideration, I think it's perfectly reasonable to allot Hodges a small amount of leeway for military service, because he almost certainly would have been seasoned enough to secure a spot in the majors earlier than age 24 without having to lose prep years in the service. How much is extremely difficult to say; it might have just tired him out of the majors at an earlier age than 39, it might not. But, in my opinion, he deserves a military adjustment just as much Feller or Mays or Rizzuto or whoever. I still don't think it makes Hodges a HoF'er, BUT it probably gets him a little closer.
          "Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"

          Comment


          • #50
            --Hodges war credit is pretty fuzzy. He was not a major league quality player in the years he missed. That he might have developed into one sooner had he not served is ceratinly possible, even likely. Its alot harder to make an concrete adjustment for him a guys who actually had their MLB careers interupted though.

            Comment


            • #51
              I agree with Mark. It's one thing for the players like Williams, DiMaggio, Greenberg, Mize, Gordon, and others who lost their prime years to service, it's another for a guy like Hodges who lost developmental time. If anything, service may have delayed Hodges growth, and I think at best he might have two extra years of service, but even then, they'd probably just be developmental type years like his 1948, and not prime years of production (so if anything, 1948, may have been better).

              However, the difference might be enough to give Hodges 400 career homeruns. That achievement might actually make a big difference for Hodges' candidacy.

              Comment


              • #52
                This is why it's so important what Hodges actually improved on in 1949. There's alomst certainly information out there, and those who want to bolster Hodges' case through it have to be willing to do the work.

                Jim Albright
                Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

                  Originally posted by jalbright
                  This is why it's so important what Hodges actually improved on in 1949. There's alomst certainly information out there, and those who want to bolster Hodges' case through it have to be willing to do the work.

                  Jim Albright
                  We are working Jim it isn't that easy a task, all you guys have reasonable opinions and it looks like you are ready to listen on Gil because he was so close to 400 home runs. It doesn't matter if a guy lost 2-3 years at the beginning, middle or end WW2 hurt all involved. Thank you all for your opinions it gives Gil Hodges' backers some hope.
                  Lets support Gil Hodges for The Hall of Fame, a true Hall of Famer.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Would 400 homeruns make a difference for Hodges to most here? Presumably, he'd also have about 2200 hits and perhaps 1400 RBI, had he been able to develop a few years earlier.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I won't answer that question directly. My thinking is Perez is a decent choice for the HOF, and the difference between him and Hodges is about 2 seasons of Hodges' average production. If it seems reasonable that his wartime service cost him that much, remembering that usually gains in the early ages are the most significant, I can put Hodges on a par with Perez. Without considering Hodges' military service, I'd leave Hodges out of the Hall and short of Perez. If the facts don't convince me to raise Hodges to a par with Perez, he's immediately no better than on the bubble, and maybe little better in my estimation than he currently is.

                      I tend to believe Hodges deserves some credit for his military service, because I agree most soldiers grow up while serving in the military. The problem is, as has been pointed out by several others lately, that is a generalization which may or may not be applicable to Hodges. I'm glad to hear that his supporters understand this last point, because some of their previous comments seemed to indicate they might not.

                      Jim Albright
                      Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                      Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                      A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        a lot of supposition

                        First off, I come from the view that it is not a diss or insult not to make the Hall of Fame. The truth of the matter is that Mr. Gil Hodges was a damn fine player. Damn Fine. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, his cumulative numbers may not be sufficient to gain entry on his playing career alone. Trying to 'add in' additional numbers for his wartime service seems a difficult task -at best. Awhile back, I offered that the way for Mr. Hodges to be elevated to the Hall of Fame is if he is viewed in the lens of 'totality of his career' and include his managing career that was capstoned with the 1969 'Miracle Mets' World Championship and tragically cut short with his early death at age 48.
                        This is a difficult way to look at a potential Hall of Fame candidate and I am curious if any other HOF'er has been selected in such a fashion.
                        But hey, maybe I am all wet on this-after all I am from Seattle!
                        Johnny
                        Delusion, Life's Coping Mechanism

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

                          Originally posted by jalbright
                          I won't answer that question directly. My thinking is Perez is a decent choice for the HOF, and the difference between him and Hodges is about 2 seasons of Hodges' average production. If it seems reasonable that his wartime service cost him that much, remembering that usually gains in the early ages are the most significant, I can put Hodges on a par with Perez. Without considering Hodges' military service, I'd leave Hodges out of the Hall and short of Perez. If the facts don't convince me to raise Hodges to a par with Perez, he's immediately no better than on the bubble, and maybe little better in my estimation than he currently is.

                          I tend to believe Hodges deserves some credit for his military service, because I agree most soldiers grow up while serving in the military. The problem is, as has been pointed out by several others lately, that is a generalization which may or may not be applicable to Hodges. I'm glad to hear that his supporters understand this last point, because some of their previous comments seemed to indicate they might not.

                          Jim Albright
                          It is an individual thing who grows up who doesn't and how fast they mature. When you are 19 and far from home fending for yourself for the first time, and facing war like Gil did you're either mature enough to handle it or you grow up real quick. He also came home a combat hero earning a Bronze Star and Combat Action Ribbon while gaining the rank of sergeant. He must have shown his superiors enough maturity to become an NCO and a leader at such a young age.
                          Lets support Gil Hodges for The Hall of Fame, a true Hall of Famer.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by kramer_47
                            It is an individual thing who grows up who doesn't and how fast they mature. When you are 19 and far from home fending for yourself for the first time, and facing war like Gil did you're either mature enough to handle it or you grow up real quick. He also came home a combat hero earning a Bronze Star and Combat Action Ribbon while gaining the rank of sergeant. He must have shown his superiors enough maturity to become an NCO and a leader at such a young age.
                            Not sure why this is relevant. If we take the war away, the "grow up fast" argument goes away too.
                            "Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by DoubleX
                              I agree with Mark. It's one thing for the players like Williams, DiMaggio, Greenberg, Mize, Gordon, and others who lost their prime years to service, it's another for a guy like Hodges who lost developmental time. If anything, service may have delayed Hodges growth, and I think at best he might have two extra years of service, but even then, they'd probably just be developmental type years like his 1948, and not prime years of production (so if anything, 1948, may have been better).

                              However, the difference might be enough to give Hodges 400 career homeruns. That achievement might actually make a big difference for Hodges' candidacy.
                              I agree, I think it's important to distinguish the two. Gil Hodges was not an all-star caliber player while he was in the service, like DiMaggio or Williams were, so it's much harder to develop an image of what was lost. Therefore I think everyone needs to err on the side of caution when allotting extra credit to Hodges, but I think he definitely deserves a little bit of extra credit.

                              Still, it doesn't make him a Hall of Famer in my opinion. I don't see any reason to believe that, had he developmental seasons at a younger age, Hodges would have been better at his peak than he really was. That's my main beef with Hodges supporters; on a per-season basis, he didn't have the type of value you think a Hall of Famer should have.
                              "Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Lots of good insights in this thread about two players I really like. I don't think I could choose one over the other, though. I know that's kinda lame for a first post but these guys are pretty comparable.

                                I haven't read very many of the threads here yet, so I'm not familiar with prevailing opinions on various issues/players, but I find I'm more and more inclined to consider players primarily within their time and relative to their contemporaries. As far as I'm concerned, both Hodges and Perez are HOF'ers when considered in context. I might lean *very* slightly to Tony Perez, and I promise that's unbiased.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X