Gil got a 2 on the Black Ink test -- all he ever led the National League in was games played. He had only two top-10 finishes in the MVP voting, with 0.65 career MVP Shares (Ted Kluszewski. a contemporary first baseman who also neither won an MVP or made the Hall, retired with 1.30 MVP Shares). None of the 10 players most similar to Gil are in the Hall.

Apart from the sentiment surrounding the 1969 Mets and his early death, I don't see the argument.

As a player he has the "best of a weak crop" argument. 1B debut 1937+, retired before 1974:


Combined with his managing career this puts him over the HOF line, IMO. But it's hardly "the worst miscarriage of justice by the voters in the history of the Baseball Hall of Fame." Let's try to confine such hyperbole to the political realm.

There are so many players similar to Hodges that you get very long comps lists. This one is very tightly centered on him in terms of OPS+ and PAs, and ranked by WAR Fielding Runs, with SB included for a quick gauge of speed:



Those are Griffey and Matthews Srs, naturally. That list, with no HOFers (though Beltran is still active and building a case), is about as definitive a HOVG list as I've seen lately. I did not limit by position, so it's even a little odd to see such a list without some HOFer, infielder or catcher, on it somewhere; but this list clean avoids them. Needless to say, HOVG means Very Good indeed. It is a rare team that wouldn't be improved by adding one of these players in his prime.

"the worst miscarriage of justice by the voters in the history of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

How can an election, or a series of elections, be a miscarriage of justice? The voters weren't members of a jury.

Seems just like talk to hype book sales.Why did it take two people to write this book?

Fun bit of trivia (and I see they mention it in the article): for a very brief period, Gil Hodges was the all-time leader in Home Runs by a National League right handed hitter; might have been interesting to see what Hodges could have done playing in the LA Coliseum in his prime. BTW, for the longest time the left handed NL Home Run leader was Mel Ott; fitting that the two who have passed him are also associated with the Giants.

DB

I wanted to go to the Elusive Hall of Fame, but I couldn't find it anywhere!

\rimshot
\try the veal

Why did it take two people to write this book?

Clavin & Peary also wrote the infuriating sabermetric-free "Roger Maris: Baseball's Reluctant Hero" book.

One writer added RBI's up and the other added RBI up.

invariably the first question is, “Why isn’t Gil Hodges in the Hall of Fame?”

It's generally a bad idea to open with a ridiculous lie.

The Dodgers’ backward policy has been to only retire uniform numbers after a player has been voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Junior Gilliam is not in the Hall of Fame.

Combined with his managing career this puts him over the HOF line, IMO.

You really think being the best of a very weak crop is a good HOF argument? His overall managerial career isn't really anything special either.

The VC is always strange and I can't keep straight who's eligible with whom in the current set-up, but the best argument for Hodges is along these lines:

Here are the last 30 years of VC position player inductions of reasonably modern players (i.e. no Negro League or pre-Ruth types), in reverse order of induction:

Santo 67 WAR
Gordon 54
Maz 32
Cepeda 46
Doby 47
Fox 46
Ashburn 60
Rizzuto 38
Lazzeri 46
Schoendienst 39
Doerr 47
Lombardi 44
Vaughan 71
Reese 63

And still it's hard. Hodges had 41 WAR. That's not out of character with most of those selections but it is only ahead of Rizzuto, Maz and Schoendienst. Of course WAR is not everything and you can also add in Hodges' managerial career to maybe boost him up to being similar to the mid-40s brigade.

Frankly, most of those guys got in because they had a good story or because they were respected. Those first two picks of Vaughan and Reese were proper VC picks, correcting mistakes of the writers. The last two picks of Santo and Gordon are the same. But that's a whole lot of HOVG in the middle (Ashburn and possibly Doby aside) and I'd guess those guys are largely indistinguishable from a half-dozen who didn't make it. Which makes Hodges' exclusion kind of odd. He's got good support outside the VC, he seems to have been widely respected, he was a key part of good teams -- that plus being HOVG has done quite well with the VC.

I do not understand the comments about Hodges managerial career adding to his case. Players are elected as player and Managers are elected as Managers. If you weren't good enough at either to be elected, you don't get to add the two together.

Players are elected as player and Managers are elected as Managers. If you weren't good enough at either to be elected, you don't get to add the two together

But why not? Apart from the fact that empirically it has sometimes happened that way (Frank Chance, Lou Boudreau, Red Schoendienst), why wouldn't somebody who contributed significantly as a player and then spent a lot more years contributing significantly as a manager be worthy on a combined basis? I can imagine Kirk Gibson or Don Mattingly winning a couple of pennants as managers – not enough to induct him on its own – and then voters later saying, wow, this guy was in the thick of things for a long time, it's hard to imagine Cooperstown without him.

[12]Reposted from the Nov 2011 Hodges thread:

From http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/rules-election/eras-golden


Name: The Golden Era Committee ("The Committee") shall refer to the electorate that considers retired Major League Baseball players no longer eligible for election by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA), along with managers, umpires and executives, whose greatest contributions to the game were realized from the 1947-1972 era. ...

Eligible Candidates – Eligible candidates must be selected from:

(A) Eligible candidates must be selected from managers, umpires, executives and players, who meet following criteria related to their classification:

Players who played in at least 10 major league seasons, who are not on Major League Baseball's ineligible list, and have been retired for 21 or more seasons;
Managers and umpires with 10 or more years in baseball and retired for at least five years. Candidates who are 65 years or older are eligible six months following retirement;
Executives retired for at least five years. Active executives 65 years or older are eligible for consideration.

(B) Those whose careers entailed involvement in multiple categories will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball; however, the specific category in which these 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-appointed Historical Overview Committee shall determine that individual's category as a player, as a manager or as an umpire or as an executive/pioneer. Those designated as players must fulfill the requirements of 6 (A).

(emphasis added)

This Hall of Fame is as elusive as Robert Denby!

Thus, the Hall of Fame voters have been able to say: If the Dodgers don’t even consider Hodges for their Hall of Fame, there’s no reason I should consider him for ours.

I don't believe I've ever heard this argument about anyone.

But why not? Apart from the fact that empirically it has sometimes happened that way (Frank Chance, Lou Boudreau, Red Schoendienst), why wouldn't somebody who contributed significantly as a player and then spent a lot more years contributing significantly as a manager be worthy on a combined basis?

Well, Bob C, having been shown the error of my ways by bobm, I can only give you my opinion on why I don't think it should happen that way. If someone wasn't quite good enough to be elected as a player, they shouldn't be elected as a player. If someone wasn't quite good enough to be elected as a manager, they shouldn't be elected as a manager. If you haven't done either well enough be a Hall of Famer, you're still not a HOF simply becasue you've done both at a level not commensurate with enshrinement.

Clearly that's what the voting rules for the Committee instruct, but I personally don't feel someone like Hodges, who was not a HOF 1B nor a HOF manager, should be elected becasue he was a HOVG player and had a noteable achievment as a manager. However, as those are the voting instructions, I would consider him carefully if I were on the Committee.

The Dodgers’ backward policy has been to only retire uniform numbers after a player has been voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Junior Gilliam is not in the Hall of Fame.

But he might be in the Elusive Hall of Fame.

Thus, the Hall of Fame voters have been able to say: If the Dodgers don’t even consider Hodges for their Hall of Fame, there’s no reason I should consider him for ours.

I don't believe I've ever heard this argument about anyone.

I doubt it's what the voters thought either. If you look at Hodges' MVP finishes, it's clear the BBWAA didn't consdier him a HOF during his career either. I think it's much more likely they didn't elect him after his retirement because they still didn't think he was a HOF 1B. I mean he most resembles Jim Bottomley, a horrible VC selection in 1973. If the writers thought Jim Bottomley was what a HOF 1B looked like, they had ample opportunity to affirm that as Hodges was still on the ballot until 1983. Instead they elected Harmon Killebrew in 1984, followed by Willie McCovey in 1986 and Willie Stargell in 1987. I think it's clear they were setting a higher batting standard for the position and Hodges didn't/doesn't meet it.