Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

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

  • leecemark
    replied
    --I think you answered your own question. Perez played much longer and yet maintained slightly better rate stats (and much better counting ones). It would be extremely difficult to argue that Hodges had a better career as a hitter. Hodges almost certainly was a better defensive 1B, but Perez played a number of years as a 3B so picks up some ground in positional value.
    --I see Perez as a very borderline selection who made it only due to his longevity. If Hodges had been able to play as long at the same level he would no doubt be in as well, but he fell well short.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Coming into this thread, I assumed Perez was the better player, because he's the Hall of Famer. But I ended up voting for Hodges.

    Though Perez's OPS+ was marginally higher (by two points), Hodges was a better slugger, he fielded slightly better, he walked more and posted a higher OPS. He was an All-Star more often and netted a few Gold Gloves, too (Perez never earned a Gold Glove). He also performed better in the postseason.

    So, why is Perez in the Hall of Fame and not Hodges? Perez was part of the legendary Big Red Machine, so that helps his reputation. He also had better counting stats, eclipsing 2,700 hits and 500 doubles. Hodges didn't even reach 2,000 hits or 300 doubles.

    But, if we are going to use an if-then argument, then if Tony Perez is in the Hall of Fame, Gil Hodges should be too.

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer_47
    replied
    Originally posted by johnny
    I watched them both with the Modesto B's the Athletics minor league team. There was a time when both Ozzie and Jose looked pretty much the same. Of course, then Jose took off!
    Wasn't Ozzie a pitcher in the Yankees farm system before he became an outfielder with the A's.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by kramer_47
    Johnny that is a very good example, they are identical twins, one was a superstar the other couldn't even stay in the majors. So when we try to figure out humans it is very difficult because there aren't 2 the same.
    I watched them both with the Modesto B's the Athletics minor league team. There was a time when both Ozzie and Jose looked pretty much the same. Of course, then Jose took off!

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer_47
    replied
    Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

    Originally posted by johnny
    one just has to look at Jose and Ozzie Canseco...twins, yet!
    Johnny that is a very good example, they are identical twins, one was a superstar the other couldn't even stay in the majors. So when we try to figure out humans it is very difficult because there aren't 2 the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by kramer_47
    You are right Jim, there isn't 2 people the same unless they are twins but even twins have differences. I can see watching my 2 grandsons born 3 weeks apart a year ago, even though the same age they are quite different in there development so far. The PCL is an interesting topic too, how some players asked to be shipped back there to make more money.
    one just has to look at Jose and Ozzie Canseco...twins, yet!

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Don't get me started on identical twins. My wife is one. Suffice it to say, I don't think either my sister in law or I would consider each other suitable mates. I'll leave it at that.

    The PCL is an interesting topic, and it is the one league outside of Negro League ball in the US in this century which might have had a HOF caliber player for most or all of his career. The American Association might qualify in the 19th century. With my other interests/commitments, I haven't been able to do it, but I'd be interested in seeing work similar to my Japanese writings on the PCL.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer_47
    replied
    Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

    Originally posted by jalbright
    Johnson was in the PCL, but the source I saw indicated Johnson did indeed want to go to the majors throughout, but he couldn't impress them enough prior to actually signing with the A's. Regardless, the key point is that development isn't a straight-line, clearly predictable process, but that it has a large individual component, subject to all those variables which make each of us unique.

    Jim Albright
    You are right Jim, there isn't 2 people the same unless they are twins but even twins have differences. I can see watching my 2 grandsons born 3 weeks apart a year ago, even though the same age they are quite different in there development so far. The PCL is an interesting topic too, how some players asked to be shipped back there to make more money.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Johnson was in the PCL, but the source I saw indicated Johnson did indeed want to go to the majors throughout, but he couldn't impress them enough prior to actually signing with the A's. Regardless, the key point is that development isn't a straight-line, clearly predictable process, but that it has a large individual component, subject to all those variables which make each of us unique.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer_47
    replied
    Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

    Originally posted by jalbright
    Pitchers are a breed apart, to be sure. A more interesting cautionary tale might be Bob Johnson, the A's outfielder. He was a darned good player, yet he got a late start in the majors. I've seen indications the reason was it took him that long to convince major league teams he could hit a curve. In one way, it's hard to believe it took a guy that long to learn to hit a curve and then he turned in that kind of career. In another, if this case isn't true, I'm sure there's one somewhere more or less like it because of the highly individual nature of how players develop.

    Jim Albright
    You are certainly right about pitchers, they are different. You know years ago from 1920-1960 some players stayed in the minors because they made more money. Chuck Connors and Steve Bilko were big names in the Pacific Coast League, the Pacific Coast League back then had alot of star players, the league was more then triple A. Where was Bob Johnson playing before he came up to the A's, he could have been making twice as much in the PCL and because of money reasons was satisfied there. Then later knowing he was major league quality wanted the prestige of playing in the majors.
    Last edited by kramer_47; 02-19-2006, 09:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Pitchers are a breed apart, to be sure. A more interesting cautionary tale might be Bob Johnson, the A's outfielder. He was a darned good player, yet he got a late start in the majors. I've seen indications the reason was it took him that long to convince major league teams he could hit a curve. In one way, it's hard to believe it took a guy that long to learn to hit a curve and then he turned in that kind of career. In another, if this case isn't true, I'm sure there's one somewhere more or less like it because of the highly individual nature of how players develop.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer_47
    replied
    Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

    Originally posted by digglahhh
    Yeah, that's basically the point.
    Every player is different, pitchers usually take longer then hitters to develop, look at Sandy Koufax. What we are saying was the 2 1/2 years taken away from Gil critical to his developing sooner, I say he would have arrived sooner, others say no he wouldn't. But I don't think we can compare pitchers and hitters.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    Originally posted by kramer_47
    What you say is true but Nolan didn't stop playing baseball
    Yeah, that's basically the point.

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer_47
    replied
    Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

    [QUOTE=jalbright]I can wait--but without the info I seek, I'm sticking to my guns. What you've got so far is plausible, but not persuasive (see the above post, which I would agree with if his conclusion about Hodges' development is sound). What's getting quite annoying is your continual pushing for a commitment now. It doesn't make that much difference in the first place (it's not like I have a vote in the Veteran's Committee), but I've told you repeatedly from the moment I started you down this path where I stand. Please respect my position. Remember, persuasion also sometimes means knowing when to back off, lest you turn off your audience.

    Why can't you go to a local library and look at the microfiche/microfilm for references to Gil Hodges in the NY Times sports section (and other NYC area papers if you live in Northern Jersey)? That's not the easiest task, but it should be doable.

    Jim Albright QUOTE


    If you read what I said again no where in my statement am I pushing for a commitment, all I was saying is i'm working on it and it will take time. I respect you position on this and I have started to present evidence and more will come. So don't get annoyed, respect my opinion too you know where I stand and i'm just trying to keep this issue up front. I'm doing plenty of research on this and I hope to get to other sources soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer_47
    replied
    Tony Perez vs. Gil Hodges?

    Originally posted by Barnstormer
    I don't think there's any "smoking gun" or specific thing that he improved on - after re-joining the Dodgers in '47 he followed a normal learning curve, and had "arrived" by '49. That being the case I tend to agree with the people who say that WWII delayed the start of that learning curve, that without it he may have arrived two years earlier (though not more).

    One thing that may have made a difference is that he was a catcher in '47 and the start of '48 (when Campy came into his own). Moved to 1B full-time in '49, started producing like an all-star in '49. Could be that the move to first coincided with his maturity as a hitter, could be that catching hurt his hitting a little those first two years.
    I agree with you that the 2 years did hurt his development as a player, Gil would have switched to catcher in 1944 instead of 1946, It had to hurt him being away from the game so long.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X