Maybe This Time: Gil Hodges on Another HOF Ballot

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

That's a good read. Thanks for sharing that!



It's interesting that this year the hall is enshrining people such as Hodges and Buck O'Neil who might have fallen short in terms of statistics, but had tremendous character. Perhaps not coincidentally, it comes when several players with tremendous statistics but who appear to be short on character are in their last year on the ballot and could finally be elected.



I never had the pleasure of meeting Hodges, but I did meet Buck twice. Once was before the Ken Burns documentary and the other time it was in the Negro Leagues Museum as he was preparing for an interview the day before he was widely expected to be elected by the group looking at the careers of those players. He was every bit as engaging and warm as he appeared in the documentary.



The Hall of Fame will be a more complete place with players like Clemens, Bonds, and ARod. But it's a better place with players like Gil and Buck.



Oh, and the heck with Hawk Harrelson.

[G-Fafif]

And the fact that he was a mensch came as no surprise to me. https://forward.com/culture/479194/a-baseball-star-and-all-around-mensch-finally-makes-it-to-the-hall-of-fame/https://forward.com/culture/479194/a-baseball-star-and-all-around-mensch-finally-makes-it-to-the-hall-of-fame/

Marvelous story. Thank you for sharing.

[kcmets]

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=82651 time=1638913497 user_id=119]The Hall of Fame will be a more complete place with players like Clemens, Bonds, and ARod.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Thread buzz kill? I was praising Gil and Buck!

[G-Fafif]

My buzz is intact.

[kcmets]

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=82661 time=1638930658 user_id=119]
Thread buzz kill? I was praising Gil and Buck!

[Edgy MD]

Well, I sort of read that as a backhanded laud. Perhaps more of a dual.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Lauding Clemens? You read that the wrong way. My point, and perhaps I was clumsy in offering it, was that there is more to greatness than statistics. Gil and Buck transcended their statistics, and adding people like them makes the hall a better place. There are plenty of people defending Clemens and Bonds, saying the hall is incomplete without them. I'd rather have Gil and Buck.



Here's a good Buck story I heard while at the museum that day. He was at the musuem often, and very much enjoyed talking to guests. One day he was parked out front, went out and discovered a charter bus was blocking his car and couldn't get out. Rather than be upset, Buck got on the bus and spoke to everyone on it, shaking hands and posing for photos until the driver came back out.

[kcmets]

Edgy MD wrote: Well, I sort of read that as a backhanded laud. Perhaps more of a dual.

Look, I'm not pussy footin' around on this and bending over backwards to guess

or interpret what's not there. Nor use cute palindromes to do whatever it is that

you are trying to, well, do?



It's a pretty simple sentence:


=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=82651 time=1638913497 user_id=119]The Hall of Fame will be a more complete place with players like Clemens, Bonds, and ARod.

[stevejrogers]

FWIW, the elections of Oliva, Hodges and Minoso means there are 53 honorees that have a team retired number associated with them that are not in the Baseball Hall;



Diamondbacks Luis Gonzalez 20

Braves Dale Murphy 3

Red Sox Johnny Pesky 6, David Ortiz 34

White Sox Billy Pierce 19, Paul Konerko 14, Mark Buerhle 56

Reds Fred Hutchinson 1, Ted Kluszewski 18, Pete Rose 14

Indians/Guardians Mel Harder 18, Jacobs Field Sellout Streak from 1995-2001 455

Rockies Todd Helton 17

Tigers Willie Horton 23, Lou Whitaker 1 (sometime in 2022)

Astros Jim Umbricht 32, Don Wilson 40, Jose Cruz 25, Mike Scott 33, Larry Dierker 49, Jimmy Wynn 24

Royals Dick Howser 10

Angels Gene Autry 26, Jimmie Reese 50, Jim Fregosi 11

Dodgers Jim Gilliam 19

Twins Kent Hrbek 14, Tom Kelly 10, Joe Mauer 7

Mets Jerry Koosman 36

MFYs Thurman Munson 15, Elston Howard 32, Roger Maris 9, Billy Martin 1, Don Mattingly 23, Ron Guidry 49, Bernie Williams 51, Jorge Posada 20, Andy Pettitte 46

Athletics Dave Stewart 34 (sometime in 2022)

Phillies Dick Allen 15

Pirates Billy Meyer 1, Danny Murtaugh 40

Padres Steve Garvey 6, Randy Jones 35

Giants Barry Bonds 25, Will Clark 22 (sometime in 2022)

Cardinals Ken Boyer 14, August Busch 85

Rays Don Zimmer 66

Rangers Johnny Oates 26, Adrian Beltre 29, Michael Young 10

[Edgy MD]

And it's really jammed up Cleveland's equipment managers to keep 455 out of circulation.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm looking forward (well, only sort of) to the day when we break the three-digit barrier in uniform numbers.

[Willets Point]

I suspect they'll start using emoji in place of numbers.

[MFS62]

If you're wondering why #26 was retired for Gene Autry, this is from his Wiki page (yeah, I know):

The number 26 was retired by the Angels in Autry's honor. The chosen number reflected that baseball's rosters (at the time) had 25 men, so Autry's unflagging support for his team made him the "26th man"

Later

[Edgy MD]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm looking forward (well, only sort of) to the day when we break the three-digit barrier in uniform numbers.

NPB already has triple-digit numbers, because each player in the system gets an individual number. Usually the three-digit numbers only go to "developmental players," low down in the system, and they shed them as soon as they can.



Bill Lee was turned down in his request to wear #337 with the Expos, but he was able to suit up in it for the Alaska Goldpanners.



http://www.panneralumni.com/wp-content/uploads/1999/02/2019_alumni-featured_wfl.jpg>

[Frayed Knot]

I hadn't realized until just looking it up this very second (well not THIS very second but the second that was occurring just prior to me writing this) that Steve Garvey had spent as much time with the Padres as he did -- five seasons, three full ones, slightly more than 1/4 of his ML PAs (I would have guessed more like 10-15%)

But that still doesn't change the fact that the Padres retiring his number but not the Dodgers is one of the more ridiculous things in uniform retirement ever and it just emphasizes SDP's role as little brother

even though they probably thought that jumping on #6 before LA did put them closer to equal footing because they were able to "steal" one away from big brother.



News Flash Pads ... it didn't.

[stevejrogers]

Frayed Knot wrote: I hadn't realized until just looking it up this very second (well not THIS very second but the second that was occurring just prior to me writing this) that Steve Garvey had spent as much time with the Padres as he did -- five seasons, three full ones, slightly more than 1/4 of his ML PAs (I would have guessed more like 10-15%) But that still doesn't change the fact that the Padres retiring his number but not the Dodgers is one of the more ridiculous things in uniform retirement ever and it just emphasizes SDP's role as little brother even though they probably thought that jumping on #6 before LA did put them closer to equal footing because they were able to "steal" one away from big brother. News Flash Pads ... it didn't.

Interestingly, #6, at least in terms of players, was not assigned between when Garvey left and 2003. Since ‘03 it's been issued 12 times. Including Brent Mayne, Jerry Hairston, Curtis Granderson, Kenny Lofton, and last season's Trea Turner.

[Edgy MD]

The Dodgers appear to have a policy of not retiring the number of non-Hall of Famers. As such, Hodges' 14 has been in circulation all of these years, and if it finally gets mothballed, I imagine it will be in his honor, but not Scoscia's.



It's kind of silly, I think, to farm out how you intend to honor your team's legacies to the Hall of Fame decision makers, but when it comes to retired numbers, there are as many opinions as there are people.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: The Dodgers appear to have a policy of not retiring the number of non-Hall of Famers.

Not really. They retired Jim Gilliam's 19. He never had a chance of election to the HOF.

[Frayed Knot]

=stevejrogers post_id=82699 time=1639010231 user_id=57]
Interestingly, #6, at least in terms of players, was not assigned between when Garvey left and 2003. Since ‘03 it's been issued 12 times. Including Brent Mayne, Jerry Hairston, Curtis Granderson, Kenny Lofton, and last season's Trea Turner.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy MD wrote: The Dodgers appear to have a policy of not retiring the number of non-Hall of Famers. Not really. They retired Jim Gilliam's 19. He never had a chance of election to the HOF.

That was a memorial tribute number retirement, as the long time player/coach had passed away the year before.



Very much like the Mets with Hodges, and Yankees with Munson and Elston Howard.

[roger_that]

What's your point? Mine was that there is an exception to the Dodgers' HOF-only policy, so they could have retired Gil's if they'd wanted to. They didn't.

[Edgy MD]

Well, Gil didn't pass within the fold, like he did with the Mets, and as Junior did with the Dodgers.



But yeah, if there is such a rule, Gilliam was certainly an exception.

[stevejrogers]

=roger_that post_id=82734 time=1639075701 user_id=128]
What's your point? Mine was that there is an exception to the Dodgers' HOF-only policy, so they could have retired Gil's if they'd wanted to. They didn't.

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: The Dodgers appear to have a policy of not retiring the number of non-Hall of Famers. As such, Hodges' 14 has been in circulation all of these years, and if it finally gets mothballed, I imagine it will be in his honor, but not Scoscia's. It's kind of silly, I think, to farm out how you intend to honor your team's legacies to the Hall of Fame decision makers, but when it comes to retired numbers, there are as many opinions as there are people.

Contrast to the Yankees policy of retiring your number if you were a bat boy for AT LEAST three seasons.