However, when a player, such as Hodges, is better than Player A, B, C, D, E, F and so on at his position- well, that does strike me as an effective argument. Hodges is a better choice than Perez, Jake Beckley, Jim Bottomley, Frank Chance, Roger Connor, George Kelly, Bill Terry, and quite possibly George Sisler,

That may well be, I'm not going to do a comparison of all of them. But the problem is that Hodges is no better than, and probably worse than players H, I, and J, who are Norm Cash, Boog Powell, and Keith Hernandez. The first rule one should apply is "Is he the best available candidate at his position?" The answer here is no.

Hodges is a better choice than Perez, Jake Beckley, Jim Bottomley, Frank Chance, Roger Connor, George Kelly, Bill Terry, and quite possibly George Sisler

Love to hear an argument that has Hodges above Connor. Or hell, even Terry (who is among the most frequently overrated player. Overrated and bad aren't the same thing. Hell of a player, but ...)

Dale Stephenson First base peak list (a few years out of date, a couple of active players will have moved up. Dale lists Evans as a first-baseman because that's where the bulk of his best years were. (He's also got Musial in RF for the same reason. Dick Allen's listed at third)


Hodges doesn't have a particularly impressive peak, his career value is nothing impressive and his career length isn't great.

He can be sensibly compared to the HOF mistakes at first, but there are clearly better players who aren't going in.

He also has 1969. Doesn't move him up much in my eyes. (Besides, you're not supposed to get credit for managing if you're being elected as a player and his managerial career isn't close to being HOF-worthy. Frank Chance is the obvious counter-argument, but he's got better peak arguments in both areas)

Key to stats:
Peak -- total offensive wins (OW) for the best five years of the player
years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total offensive wins outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
Years -- Games played, divided by most common games/team for each year.
@Pos -- percent of games played at this position
FR -- Career fielding runs above average, as estimated by Baseball Prospectus
-- From '88-'96, fielding runs generated from DA substituted.
Hall -- Hall of Fame status. * indicates HOFer, with VC or OT for committee
Active players listed as Actv
Currently BBWAA eligible listed with highest vote %.
Players not yet eligible listed with year of eligibility.
Players recently retired are listed with year to appear on ballot.
Players on ineligible list are listed as -IE-
Other -- % of games played at other positions. Less than 20% not listed.
OW -- Offensive Wins, (BR/A + SBR) / R/W.
R/W -- Runs per win, calculated by (4 * League Runs) / (1.83 * League Games)
BR/A -- park adjusted linear weight batting runs, calculated by TB VII.
SBR -- stolen base runs. (SB*0.22 - CS*0.35). Not calculated for years
without caught stealing totals.

Peaks for Prominent First Basemen

Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Lou Gehrig 42.1 30s 46.2 14.1 99% -53 *
Jimmie Foxx 33.9 30s 31.7 15.0 83% 14 *
Frank Thomas 33.2 90s 25.9 10.9 55% -59 Actv 44% dh
Jeff Bagwell 33.0 90s 25.9 11.4 99% 38 Actv
Willie McCovey 31.9 60s 28.9 16.1 79% -40 *
Mark McGwire 31.8 90s 25.1 11.8 94% 22 '07
Johnny Mize 27.9 30s 23.4 12.2 88% 51 * VC
Jason Giambi 27.0 00s 2.6 6.9 69% 18 Actv
Hank Greenberg 25.9 30s 13.9 9.1 82% 49 *
George Sisler 25.5 20s 3.0 13.6 96% 5 *
Will Clark 25.1 80s 16.6 12.6 96% 53 '06
Pedro Guerrero 24.7 80s 6.5 9.8 37% -74 24% 3b, 35% of
Dan Brouthers 24.4 1880s 25.9 13.9 98% -75 * OT
Eddie Murray 24.2 80s 25.3 19.3 80% 4 *
Jim Thome 23.9 90s 9.5 8.9 55% -22 Actv 36% 3b
Fred McGriff 23.5 90s 20.9 14.9 92% -109 Actv
John Olerud 23.4 90s 11.4 11.9 91% 95 Actv
Orlando Cepeda 23.3 60s 14.6 13.3 79% -16 * VC
Boog Powell 22.5 60s 13.0 12.6 72% -111 21% lf
Jack Fournier 22.3 20s 8.9 10.0 86% -64
Don Mattingly 21.9 80s 4.6 11.4 92% 63 14%
Roger Connor 21.8 1880s 23.5 16.7 88% 105 * VC
Dolph Camilli 21.4 30s 6.2 9.7 99% 90
Rafael Palmeiro 21.3 90s 22.0 15.3 77% 49 Actv
Norm Cash 20.8 60s 18.1 13.0 93% 84
Keith Hernandez 20.6 80s 14.9 13.2 96% 167 6%
Bill Terry 20.5 30s 11.6 11.2 92% 74 *
Bob Watson 18.4 70s 8.8 11.5 59% -61 31% lf
Mo Vaughn 18.2 90s 5.6 9.6 86% -36 Actv
Cecil Cooper 18.0 80s 2.7 12.0 78% -22
Ted Kluszewski 18.0 50s -0.6 11.1 86% -59
Jim Bottomley 17.7 20s 6.0 12.9 95% -22 * VC
John Mayberry 17.7 70s 1.1 10.3 91% -36
Mickey Vernon 17.4 50s 1.0 15.6 97% -4
John Kruk 17.2 90s 5.6 7.6 57% 14 25% lf
Frank Chance 17.0 1900s 5.7 8.5 77% 11 * OT Manager
Cap Anson 16.6 1880s 22.6 24.0 90% 77 * OT
Andy Thornton 16.5 70s 2.2 9.9 47% 10 47% dh
Darrell Evans 16.2 80s 12.0 16.9 32% 145 54% 3b
Phil Cavarretta 16.2 40s 3.9 13.2 62% -64 27% of
Hal Trosky 15.9 30s 2.3 8.7 98% -56
Andres Galarraga 15.3 90s 1.2 13.6 95% -41 Actv
Mark Grace 15.1 90s 10.9 13.8 97% 111 Actv
Gil Hodges 15.1 50s 4.6 13.4 92% 10
Steve Garvey 14.9 70s 4.3 14.7 88% 64 28%
</pre>

That may well be, I'm not going to do a comparison of all of them. But the problem is that Hodges is no better than, and probably worse than players H, I, and J, who are Norm Cash, Boog Powell, and Keith Hernandez. The first rule one should apply is "Is he the best available candidate at his position?" The answer here is no.

Not to mention, M, N and O - Mattingly, Clark, and Olerud.

or P,Q, and R- Dick Allen, Andres Galaraga and Dolph Camilli...anyone want to try going to Z?

What's next, a Cookie Lavagetto for Cooperstown movement?

Hodges is a better choice than Perez, Jake Beckley, Jim Bottomley, Frank Chance, Roger Connor, George Kelly, Bill Terry, and quite possibly George Sisler,

Maybe this is just a list of guys he's never heard of!

or P,Q, and R- Dick Allen, Andres Galaraga and Dolph Camilli...anyone want to try going to Z?

Sure, but bibigon skipped K and L.

Kluszewski and Luzinski? The Hall is woefully short of Chicago Poles.

Sure, but bibigon skipped K and L.

Well, L was Hodges in Megdal's argument. I skipped K because I wanted to do three letters in a row.

Hodges doesn't deserve the HOF as a player. As a combined player-manager, he's worth serious consideration; he really did do a fine managing job, both in Washington and New York.

But the really intriguing question to me about Hodges has always been: what if the Dodgers had converted him from catcher to 3B, instead of from catcher to 1B. Hodges was by every account a brilliant defensive first baseman, quick on his feet with soft hands, and he obviously had the arm for catcher. I strongly suspect he would have developed into a very good defensive third baseman, perhaps a great defensive third baseman, and if so with his bat he would go from an also-ran HOF first baseman to a how-could-you-not-vote-for-him HOF third baseman.

Hall of Merit status for those listed in the header:

Tony Perez: has been eligible for a few years. In the backlog but not at the top of it. Draws enough support that he has some chance of eventual election.

Jake Beckley: has been in our high backlog - usually top ten - forever; the source of our longest-running arguments; a touchstone for career vs. peak arguments; karlmagnus's favorite candidate.

Jim Bottomley: disappeared from the voting with no trace. No support, not a candidate.

Frank Chance: deep backlog, probably no chance of election but has some strong supporters. A far better offensive player than you might think, but his ~1300 game career is what holds him back. If only he hadn't been beaned so often ...

Roger Connor: one of the monsters of his age, one of the "ABC" boys along with Cap Anson and Dan Brouthers. Elected overwhelmingly.

George Kelly: disappeared from the voting with no trace. No support, not a candidate.

Bill Terry: elected on his first ballot, which surprised some people. He came up for election in a weak year and competed with a splintered backlog.

George Sisler: elected after a protracted struggle. One of our most debated candidates ever. Was his early peak (before the eye infection) enough to put him over the hump? Was his late career worth anything at all?

And Gil Hodges: has drawn a stray vote or two, but far less support than Chance and absolutely no chance of election (as a player). I don't see us significantly revisiting his case.

Cash and Cepeda are together in our mid-backlog, below Perez but above Chance. Hernandez isn't eligible yet - I think his chances may be pretty good. Will Clark, also not yet eligible, will be an interesting debate, another peak vs. career argument.

"The first rule one should apply is "Is he the best available candidate at his position?" The answer here is no."

Is that really the first rule? There's no limit on how many players can be elected- if further study determines that 5-7 1B should in fact be in the HOF, how is that a problem?

"Love to hear an argument that has Hodges above Connor. Or hell, even Terry (who is among the most frequently overrated player. Overrated and bad aren't the same thing. Hell of a player, but ...)"

Connor's neutralized line was .287/.358/.435, and unlike Hodges, his managerial record doesn't help him- his career WP is .178!

Upon closer examination, Terry's stats were not as inflated by the era as I thought.

I don't take any defensive statistics from Baseball Prospectus seriously- a list like this doesn't take into account Hodges being the consensus best at his posiition defensively for more than a decade. I'm not saying that means the discussion of it is closed- but Baseball Prospectus' defensive stats aren't enough to change my mind.

Boog Powell is a great example of what I mean- even when you neutralize his stats for era/park, he's roughly equivalent to Hodges in overall value offensively. Was he even adequate defensively, let alone the best for more than a decade? Did Powell have the managerial career Hodges did?

"Besides, you're not supposed to get credit for managing if you're being elected as a player and his managerial career isn't close to being HOF-worthy."

This is quite false. Overall contribution is to be considered.

"Roger Connor: one of the monsters of his age, one of the "ABC" boys along with Cap Anson and Dan Brouthers. Elected overwhelmingly."

Tell me what I am missing here. I'm not saying this to be snarky- I'd like to know.

Boog Powell is a great example of what I mean- even when you neutralize his stats for era/park, he's roughly equivalent to Hodges in overall value offensively. Was he even adequate defensively, let alone the best for more than a decade?

Powell wasn't mobile at all, of course. But he did have remarkably soft and sure hands, and saved those highly-regarded (rightly so, of course) Baltimore infielders quite a few throwing errors.

But, yes, Hodges was universally held as a peerless defensive first baseman. They didn't start giving out Gold Gloves until he was 33, and even so he won three straight.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/connoro01.php

Try this, for starters. His DT stats are a dead ringer for Raffy Palmeiro.

The first rule one should apply is "Is he the best available candidate at his position?" The answer here is no."

Is that really the first rule? There's no limit on how many players can be elected- if further study determines that 5-7 1B should in fact be in the HOF, how is that a problem?

The problem is line jumping. If it really is determined that 5-7 more firstbasemen need to be or deserve election, why would you start with #5 or #6 instead of #1?

"Powell wasn't mobile at all, of course. But he did have remarkably soft and sure hands, and saved those highly-regarded (rightly so, of course) Baltimore infielders quite a few throwing errors.

But, yes, Hodges was universally held as a peerless defensive first baseman. They didn't start giving out Gold Gloves until he was 33, and even so he won three straight."

So here's a question worth asking- how much of a first baseman's value do you tie to defense? Unless that number is quite low, Hodges' defense has to move him up that list a good bit (again, taking contemporary accounts over Prospectus' suspect-at-best defensive numbers).

"The problem is line jumping. If it really is determined that 5-7 more firstbasemen need to be or deserve election, why would you start with #5 or #6 instead of #1?"

Well, the VC vote is upcoming. Hodges is on the ballot. If it is determined that he belongs, this doesn't keep VC members from voting the others in as well- except, they're not on the ballot.

If this is a question of fairness, we could go back to 1992, when Hodges missed by one vote, and Campy was ill and unable to cast his.

If a candidate is qualified and his name comes up, I think you vote for him.

"Try this, for starters. His DT stats are a dead ringer for Raffy Palmeiro."

Why is there such a gap between his neutralized stats and his WARP3?

From what I've heard, you really shouldn't use the Translated Stats function on 19th century players. It's really bad for pitchers, but I don't think it deals properly with hitters, either.

Why is there such a gap between his neutralized stats and his WARP3?

Timelining. Without checking, that's my guess.

Timelining. Without checking, that's my guess.

That's more or less accurate - his EQA is .325, but after you apply the era adjustment used in WARP3, that drops to .309.

However, even at .309, he blows Hodges away.

If a candidate is qualified and his name comes up, I think you vote for him.

I heartily agree with this policy - the issue is that there seem to be multiple(at least four) players who were better than Hodges, and don't seem to be worthy by most people's standards.

Best guess - Hodges is around the 25-30th best 1B of all time. You need to give him a pretty sizable managerial boost to push him in the HOF by my conception of the hall at least.

I bet Hodges could win 16 games and post a 3.5-3.7 ERA in Shea next year.

/sorry

"That's more or less accurate - his EQA is .325, but after you apply the era adjustment used in WARP3, that drops to .309."

Fair enough. Of course, that also puts Connor above most 1B in the Hall. Not exactly a deal breaker for Hodges in HOF.

"Best guess - Hodges is around the 25-30th best 1B of all time."

My guess is this number fluctuates pretty significantly based on defensive evaluation. When a guy excels defensively at his position for a decade-plus, that puts him in some rare company. He did it while providing durability and for winning teams year after year, meaning a lot of extra baseball. These are not trivial aspects of evaluating his career, in my opinion.

The managerial boost adds to his overall case.

I think an issue with Hodges is that his case is one of gradual addition, rather than a particular eye-popping aspect of it. But, as Bill James said about Chuck Klein I believe, "There's just too much there."

Connor's neutralized line was .287/.358/.435

I'm as big a fan of Sean Forman as you can find, but this is flat wrong and obviously stupid.

Connor's got 11 top 5s in SLG, 10 top 5 in OBP and 11 top 5 in OPS+. He is in other words one of the absolute elite hitters of his day. Looks at him by any sensible metric and you'll see this. (I suspect the conversion routine breaks on 19th century hitters because of the large number of unearned runs) Yeah, a couple of weak leagues but the concern applies to all 19th century players, and I personally do timelining differently than Clay does (I simply don't support any but the truly dominant players from weaker leagues, but Connor's qualified by this standard)

His BA is 11% better than a league average position player, his OBP is 21% better and his SLG was 32% better.

In other words, Sean's conversions will convert the average position player from Connor's day to a .244/.295/.329 hitter. And Connor's career OPS+ will still come out to 154.

"I bet Hodges could win 16 games and post a 3.5-3.7 ERA in Shea next year.

/sorry"

I'm glad you said it- it is important to note that Hodges had all of his success despite never getting to work with Rick Peterson.

"I'm as big a fan of Sean Forman as you can find, but this is flat wrong and obviously stupid."

And I withdraw Connor as a player who is less than Hodges. I think you're right.

I also don't believe Connor's superiority is the litmus test of whether or not Hodges belongs in the HOF.

I also don't believe Connor's superiority is the litmus test of whether or not Hodges belongs in the HOF.

In the same spirit, but on the opposite side, Bottomley and Kelly shouldn't be the litmus test either. That leaves us arguing with Perez, Cepeda, Beckley, Chance, Terry, and Sisler on one side and Cash, Powell, Hernandez, W. Clark, Allen, McGriff, Palmiero, and maybe some outfielders (Frank Howard, Reggie Smith, and so on) on the other side.

"Besides, you're not supposed to get credit for managing if you're being elected as a player and his managerial career isn't close to being HOF-worthy."

This is quite false. Overall contribution is to be considered.

And Frank Chance is the obvious data point in support of your position. (Though it's worth noting that most voters of Chance's day simply thought he was a better player. Yes, he went in via the VC route. He'd also topped the BBWAA lists for some time. If he wasn't going in, nobody was)

However, from the HOF's official voting rules:

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

OK, could just be poorly written, and Hodges is a special case. But everybody I've talked with has parsed this as managerial credit is considered separately. I'm about 70% confident that there's something to that effect some place on the web site -- or at least there used to be.

Worth noting that at one point managers used to do pretty well in the voting. No longer.

I thought the VC had different rules concerning voting than the BBWAA.

"(C) Those whose careers entailed involvement as both players and managers/executives/umpires will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball; however, the specific category in which such individuals shall be considered will be determined by the role in which they were most prominent. In those instances when a candidate is prominent as both a player and as a manager, executive or umpire, the BBWAA Screening Committee shall determine that individual's candidacy as either a player (Players Ballot), or as a manager, executive or umpire (Composite Ballot). Candidates may only appear on one ballot per election. Those designated as players must fulfill the requirements of 6 (A)."

This is the relevant portion. It seems to be pretty clear to me.

It seems to be pretty clear to me.

Funny, I think it is almost a perfect contradiction.

Funny, I think it is almost a perfect contradiction.

I agree. I read that as making it completely impossible for a guy to be considered for his combined achievements as a player and in any other capacity, making the "overall contribution to the game of baseball" wording quite empty.

Wow. Saying Hodges was better than Connor is like saying Tony Lazzeri was superior to Nap Lajoie.

It looks to me like the second part of that is just determining on which ballot a "combo" candidate should appear. Joe Torre, for example, is listed as a player, but the first part of the statement would seem to indicate that his contributions as both a player and manager should be considered.

I think that interpretation is bolstered somewhat by a paragraph in this article from a few years ago:

<url=http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2003/0226/1514750.html>Link</url>

"The 62-year-old Torre, the 1971 NL MVP and a nine-time All-Star, was listed on the player ballot. But the Hall made a point of encouraging voters to combine all of his achievements -- on the field and in the dugout -- in his candidacy."

It looks to me like the second part of that is just determining on which ballot a "combo" candidate should appear. Joe Torre, for example, is listed as a player, but the first part of the statement would seem to indicate that his contributions as both a player and manager should be considered

that is the way I read it also. (without knowing about 6a---which is I'm guessing playing time rule and first date of eligibility)

Okay, I get it now. Duh.

As for Torre: in the Hall of Merit, we are explicitly considering player contributions only, with no managing credit at all - hence, we didn't take Red Schoendienst seriously as a candidate, and as I mentioned above, we have given very little support to Hodges. And John McGraw has lingered in our backlog for nearly a century. But we elected Torre, and elected him fairly easily, purely as a player.

Hodges' peak was from 1951-54, and he wasn't even one of the ten best hitters in baseball during those four years:



Hodges' RCAP outside these four years was a painful -43 runs.

He was a Boy of Summer, managed the Miracle Mets, and died young. If he had, say, played for the Senators and managed the A's to a title in the early 70s, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

On the other hand, nobody said, "Hey, that's Roger Connor!" in Field of Dreams...

"Hodges' peak was from 1951-54, and he wasn't even one of the ten best hitters in baseball during those four years:"

But you do notice that he's the best fulltime first baseman during that time, and every single hitter above him is an HOF, right?

Those five years after, when he hit 26 homers annually and was the best defender at his position, should probably be disgarded as well.

That is, save Al Rosen, who didn't have enough full seasons to even qualify, but certainly had a HOF peak.

Howard, please construct an argument as to why Hodges should be in the HOF.

Ok, I'm an idiot.

But you do notice that he's the best fulltime first baseman during that time,

Not that convincing an argument when many of the players (Robinson, Berra, Rosen, Mantle, Snider, Mathews, Campanella) were playing more valuable positions (positions at which offense is harder to find) than first base. Musial, too (100+ games of CF in 1952). Musial had only about 70 games at 1B in this stretch, although 1B was his plurality position over his career. Musial played wherever his team needed him to play - is there any doubt that he could have played 1B, and played it well, had that been what was needed?

"Musial played wherever his team needed him to play - is there any doubt that he could have played 1B, and played it well, had that been what was needed?"

I don't doubt that Musial can and did play some first base. But is your contention that, if a player from a more demanding point on the defensive spectrum exists, that we no longer consider which players are the best at their positions for HOF purposes? This seems like a silly designation- not to mention that I do think comparing him to his peers is valid- and that merely being less of a player than Stan Musial is not a reason to deny a player entry to the HOF.

Whatever you think about his HOF credentials, like Rice, Hodge's numbers just don't scream out without-a-doubt HOFer. Yet, I have to read or listen to some in the media that leaving Hodges out is a travesty. I just don't see it.

"Yet, I have to read or listen to some in the media that leaving Hodges out is a travesty. I just don't see it."

This is fair, and I alluded to this as the reason why I don't think he's in yet. His offensive numbers were very good, not great, for a long time. He was also the best defensively at his position, but an accident of timing meant he got just three gold gloves (I wonder how many people look at his resume and fail to realize he got the very first three). Then there's the managing, which is a hard-to-quantify skill- we see that two teams thought enough of him to trade players for him, then he led Washington to improve five straight years (they fell back 11 games the year he left), and led the Mets to a WS championship in his second year and winning records 3 of 4 years. There's certainly a lot of evidence that he was an excellent manager for another 7-8 years. Add in the personal qualities (they seem almost comic book-esque- he saved Jimmy Piersall from jumping off of a ledge, for instance) and I see a very qualified HOF, and among the most decent men in baseball history, on the outside looking in. Obviously, travesty is more appropriate for Darfur- but within the framework of HOF, yes, I see that as a travesty.

It looks to me like the second part of that is just determining on which ballot a "combo" candidate should appear. Joe Torre, for example, is listed as a player, but the first part of the statement would seem to indicate that his contributions as both a player and manager should be considered.

Now that I reread it, this is probably right. I think the second sentence is basically just saying "pick one" which just ever so slightly advances the ball from the proviso in the first sentence.

Obviously, travesty is more appropriate for Darfur- but within the framework of HOF, yes, I see that as a travesty.

I would guess that Hodges is not among the top 30 players eligible, but not currently in the hall of fame. Lets see if we can make progress in reaching agreement with the playing element of his career, and deal with the rest later. As you claim in your article - he has a case for the hall of fame on the basis of his playing career.

Do you think that John Olerud, Will Clark, Keith Hernandez or Don Mattingly are worthy of the hall of fame? How do you think Hodges rates relative to those four guys for instance? Please make as specific a case as possible. Playing career only.

"Lets see if we can make progress in reaching agreement with the playing element of his career, and deal with the rest later."

As I've made clear here a number of times, I think it is the cumulative effect that makes him such a compelling case. By playing career alone, I suppose I'd rank them Hernandez/Hodges/Olerud/Clark/Mattingly, with Hernandez's defense/offense combination and peak giving him the edge. Clark and Olerud both have durability issues and gaps realtive to Hodges defensively, though I think it is arguable that they are better (I don't think the case is particularly decisive either way). Mattingly was obviously very, very good in his 6-year peak- but the only two years he gave the Yankees more than 134 games after that, he slugged .394 and .416. Of these players, only Hodges combined his period of defensive dominance with his offensive peak numbers- this period of time is what makes one a Hall of Famer, in my opinion- when he is great offensively and defensively. Hodges had more years when he did it all, and did it consecutively, and for teams often playing into October.

Those five years after, when he hit 26 homers annually and was the best defender at his position, should probably be disgarded as well.

True, but he also made a ton of outs (400+ in three of the five years), and that drags him down. He was flat-out awful in '58 (259/330/434, -19 RCAP), and two years later he was done. (Yes, I know he played two more years with the Mets after that...like I said, done.)

And those HR aren't even that impressive in context:



As an offensive player those five years (adjusted for position and ballpark), he was basically Wally Post. You wanna put Wally Post in the Hall of Fame?

"As an offensive player those five years (adjusted for position and ballpark), he was basically Wally Post. You wanna put Wally Post in the Hall of Fame?"

So let me get this straight. He had four years where he was the best first baseman in baseball, even by your RCAP measurement. But based on the subsequent five years, where he was still a productive player, but on par with Wally Post, he's therefore not qualified?

Ted Williams hit .254 in 1959. Len Dykstra hit .254 in his rookie year. Do you believe Len Dykstra's rookie year belongs in the Hall of Fame?

Not only is your argument failing to consider any other factors (managing, etc.), it also fails to include Hodges FOUR BEST SEASONS.

So let me get this straight. He had four years where he was the best first baseman in baseball, even by your RCAP measurement. But based on the subsequent five years, where he was still a productive player, but on par with Wally Post, he's therefore not qualified?

He had 4 years where he was the best player at his position, followed by 5 years where he was average for his position. You consider this a HOFer?

Howard and Spike, thanks for your digging.

Looks like another example of how hard it can be to write rules that can't be mis-parsed in good faith. And how useful an example (the Torre memo) can be in making it clear what the intentions are.

As for the players in question, I've got them Clark by a big margin, Hernandez/Olerud followed
by Mattingly and Hodges well behind. He simply can't gain enough with the glove on these guys no matter how you look at it. All were fine defensive players.

I can't see Hodges ahead of Darrell Evans or Mark Grace either. Or quite a few others.

Now throw in a short but excellent managerial career ... Dunno, still can't see him among the top 30 candidates.

"He had 4 years where he was the best player at his position, followed by 5 years where he was average for his position. You consider this a HOFer?"

1) Four where he was best at his position, JUST OFFENSIVELY. In addition, he was the consensus best at his position defensively.

2) The next five, he was far from average as well- his EQAs those five years were .298, .293, .294, .268 and .297, while he continued to be the best defensively at the position. Incidentally, his two year EQAs prior to that peak were .283 and .294.

Post is a ludicrous overall comparison anyway. Hitting like Wally Post is one thing- but Post was never healthy enough to enjoy sustained success, while durability is an important part of Hodges' run. Post's third best EQA in 500 ABs was... yep, he didn't have three years with at least 500 AB, and his career total in walks was 337, while Hodges walked 107 in a single season.

Post is not a poor man's Hodges, nor a homeless man's Hodges. He's the guy the homeless man's Hodges sleeps on to stay warm.