Why is Gil Hodges STILL
not in the Hall of Fame?
n
By John T. Saccoman
n
Seton Hall University
n
Dept. of Math and
Computer Science
Introduction
In
There have been some in the Sabermetrics
“establishment” who believe that Gil Hodges is not worthy of Hall of Fame
induction. For example, in his book Baseball
Dynasties, Rob Neyer addresses the question head-on. He includes a
short article sarcastically entitled “Saint Gilbert”, and implies that Hodges’
Hall of Fame supporters are all “in their fifties”, and that younger people would not be interested
in seeing the man who received more Hall of Fame votes than anyone else finally
get his due.
In reading through the
criticisms of his candidacy, several come to the front:
1.
“Hodges’ numbers
are too similar to others not in the
2.
“Too many guys
from that team are already in the Hall”
3.
“Hodges never was
4.
“Hodges’ batting
average was too low”
5.
“Hodges’
contributions meriting him for Hall selection are not in one single area, but
rather as a player and a manager”
We
will address these point-by-point:
1.
“Hodges’
numbers are too similar to others not in the
·
The conventional
wisdom of sabermetricians is that a case for someone’s inclusion in the Hall of
Fame should not be made based on favorable comparison to the statistics of
players already enshrined.
·
Nevertheless,
some of those opposing Hodges’ enshrinement, such as Bill Madden and Rob Neyer,
put forth an argument that is logically equivalent, comparing Hodges’ numbers
with those of Rocky Colavito, and arguing “since Colavito isn’t in, Hodges
shouldn’t be, either.”
·
Here is a comparison
in the style of Neyer’s main argument:
|
|
R+RBI PER |
SLOB |
TA |
SECAVE |
|
Player A |
|
|
|
|
|
Player B |
|
|
|
|
|
Player C |
|
|
|
|
n[SLOB
= OB ´SL; TA = Total Average; SECAVE Secondary
Avg=(TB-H+BB+SB)/AB; OLWTS/
Two of these players are in
the Hall of Fame and one isn’t. Players B & C are Hall of Fame first sackers
Tony Perez and George “Highpockets” Kelly, respectively, while Player A is Gil
Hodges.
·
Sabermetricians also tell us that, as time
moves forward, the memories of a player grow dim, and all we have left of a
player is his statistics. While Hodges’ and Colavito’s numbers are very similar,
the fact is that Hodges was much more highly regarded in his time than Colavito
was in his. Add to this Hodges’ defensive reputation, his managerial career,
and the number of postseason appearances, and Hodges’ career is clearly
superior to that of Colavito’s, no disrespect to Colavito intended
·
In his
·
Neyer then compared Hodges to former Orioles
first baseman Boog Powell. Powell, although a winner of a MVP award for his
outstanding
|
|
R+RBI/ |
SLOB |
TA |
SECAVE |
|
Hodges |
|
|
|
|
|
Powell |
|
|
|
|
- Neyer also states that we should remember that
Powell played in an era of decreased offensive production. However, when
one’s era is taken into account, Hodges still comes out ahead as a run
producer: if we look at Runs
Created, and compare the player’s RC totals to the runs scored by an
average team in a season, we find that Hodges created at least
2.
“Too many guys
from that team are already in the Hall”
- This statement, always quoted without
attribution, is one of the more puzzling reasons for excluding a player
from the Hall of Fame. Is there a team quota of which I am not aware?
- First of all, Hodges credentials are largely as
player for the Brooklyn Dodgers and as a manger of the Miracle New York
Mets. Since Tom Seaver is the only player in
- The
- In fact, there seems to have been an
anti-Brooklyn bias in the Hall of Fame selections:
- While Robinson was a no-brainer first-ballot
selections, Duke Snider, one of the top power hitters from the
- In addition, Campanella, considered the
greatest offensive performer at Catcher (pre-Piazza) waited
- Coupled with the Hall’s failure to elect the
finest first baseman of the era (Hodges), and despite the selection of
lesser first basemen (see point
- Regardless of the team for which he played,
shouldn’t we at least consider that Hodges:
§
led all first basemen of the 1950 ’s in
HR (310 ), G (1477 ),
AB (5313 ), R (890 ),
H (1491 ), RBI (1001 ),
TB (2733 ) and XBH (585 );
§
was an eight-time All
Star (1949 -1955 , 1957 ), the most of any first
baseman of his time;
§
won the first 3 Gold Gloves at his
position;
§
was second among all players in the 1950 ’s in HR and RBI, third in TB and eighth in R (4 th in NL).
·
In his “Saint
Gilbert” article, Neyer contends that Hodges’ lack of MVP support is proof that
contemporary observers were not impressed with his performance, and thus he
does not deserve Hall of Fame election. He uses a standard of “
·
Hodges’ best
seasons occurred from
·
Award shares are
defined as the portion of total award votes that a player receives in a
particular year.
·
Hodges finished
·
We compare
Hodges’
·
The
·
Bill James
demonstrated via Win Shares that Stan Musial actually had the best numbers in
·
As the chart
shows, Hodges, while sporting the lowest batting average among Klu, Sauer and
the Duke, nevertheless performs much better that these other sluggers in Total
Average and Secondary Average, two important measures of offensive
effectiveness. Thus, one’s place in the MVP ballot, at least for these seasons,
might not be the best criterion for Hall of Fame election.
·
In addition,
while Hodges (and Snider) played home games in friendly Ebbets Field, Sauer
played in the equally friendly confines of Wrigley Field.
- In the years
- In comparing Hodges to other first basemen, his
numbers are no worse than theirs, particularly seven others already
enshrined in the Hall of Fame:
|
|
R |
HR |
RBI |
SLOB |
SECAV |
TA |
Hall? |
|
Hodges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Chance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cepeda |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottomley |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kluszewski |
|
|
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Perez |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No |
|
Terry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sisler |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
“Hodges’
contributions meriting him for Hall selection are not in one single area, but
rather as a player and a manager”
·
Neyer contends
that if Hall of Famers are selected for contributions across several areas,
then the standard for players becomes lower. This is an interesting argument,
but even if one believes that Hodges’ playing career is not enough to merit
enshrinement, then certainly the sum total of his playing and managing record
pushes him over the top. And why shouldn’t it?
·
Consider the
three years
·
Using the Bill
James formula to project a team’s record in an upcoming season, weighting it
·
In addition, the Pythagorean projection for winning percentage 
indicates that Hodges
was getting the most out of his team’s talent, as his team was
- After moving over to manage the New York Mets,
Hodges once again was the manager of a young expansion team. However, the
job he did in
- “Those whose careers involved stints as both
players and managers/executives/umpires may be considered for their
overall contributions to the game; however, the specific category in
which such individuals fall for purposes of election shall be determined
by the role in which they were the most prominent.” {Neyer, Baseball Dynasties}
- Now, one can not look at Hodges’ managerial
career and state that it makes him a shoo-in for the Hall. He died far too
prematurely for that. However, the
Acknowledgements
The following were very helpful in the completion of
this presentation:
Rev. G. Costa
Joseph D’Agostin
Rob Edelman
Total Baseball
The Bill James Historical Baseball
Abstract
The Bill James Guide to Baseball
Managers
Baseball Dynasties
SABR Biography Project (Mark Armour)
NY Times