How Not to Argue for Hodges, Maris for the HOF

I read in my local newspaper today a letter to the editor by Jerry Ryan, who is described as "a die-hard Yankees fan and a dedicated baseball historian." An editor noted that in the letter Ryan discusses two players "who he feels have been unjustly overlooked throughout the years" in terms of their deserving entrance into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Without intending it, I think this editor was being very precise in his choice of the word "feels", because I suspect that is exactly what I think is going on here. Ryan's photos shows someone with gray hair, so I suspect he might fondly remember Roger Maris (being a Yankees fan), and also no doubt remembers Gil Hodges (at least as a manager, if not during his prime playing years). I say that because I don't think that Ryan is really doing a lot of good thinking about these players and whether they are deserving of HOF membership. That might be too harsh an assessment -- based on just one brief letter to the editor -- but since his support of these two players falls into the common fallacies of reasoning that so often afflicts those who argue pro or con a player's HOF membership, I thought it would make for a good, instructive (and fun!) blog posting.

The only thing he writes about Roger is "Maris is the only man to beat Babe Ruth without the taint of steroids." True enough. But that is talking about one season only. Clearly one year does not make a career. And take a look at Roger Maris's career accomplishments. After several mediocre seasons for KC and Cleveland, he burst onto the NY scene in 1960, winning the MVP award with 39 HR and 112 RBI. And then 1961 was the historic season, where he and Mantle fought for the HR record, with Maris eventually blasting 61 HR with 142 RBI, 132 Runs -- though only a .269 BA (he of course took home MVP again that year). But after that season he began to fade, and other than those two years, he never was in the top 20 in MVP balloting. He was only an All-Star 4 times. He hit 30+ HR only three times. Heck, he even only had 150+ hits twice! Lifetime numbers are 275 HR, , 851 RBI, .260 BA, .476 SLG, with essentially no speed (21 SB). He did win one gold glove, but consider his various HOF measurements:

• Black Ink: Batting - 18 (122) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
• Gray Ink: Batting - 57 (423) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
• HOF Standards: Batting - 22.0 (608) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
• HOF Monitor: Batting - 83.0 (197) (Likely HOFer > 100)

So he comes up short across the board. And then look at his most "Similar Batters" ratings, where a rating over 900 is considered quite relevant indeed:

1. Bob Allison (946)
2. Hank Sauer (939)
3. Jay Buhner (922)
4. Jesse Barfield (918)
5. Dean Palmer (914)
6. Tony Armas (914)
7. Eric Davis (907)
8. Danny Tartabull (905)
9. Jermaine Dye (902)
10. Bill Nicholson (902)

No of course no one is going to argue for these guys for the HOF, nor should they. Are Maris's two MVP seasons, and the one being a record-setting year, enough to vault his resume above these guys -- who have similar career numbers -- and into the elite circle of hall-of-famers? I just don't think so. Should there be a display commemorating his great season in Cooperstown? You betcha. No doubt. But should he be a member? No way.

As for Gil Hodges, Mr. Ryan commits a classic HOF argumentative fallacy. Here is what he writes:

Hodges had a higher lifetime batting average than Harmon Killebrew and Willie
McCovey; more hits than Frank Chance, Hank Greenberg and George Kelly; and more home runs than Greenberg and Johnny Mize.

Gil was a man of great character and modesty. He was magnificent in the field. And, oh yeah, he led the "Amazing Mets" of 1969 to victory. Did I mention Hodges once hit four home runs in a single game?

Hodges is not outclassed among the 18 first-basemen currently in the Hall of Fame.

Mr Ryan does at least one thing correctly, as he limits his comparisons to players who play the same (or at least comparable) positions. But beyond that good start, can you spot the obvious flaws in his reasoning?

First, he starts by comparing Hodges with Willie McCovey and Harmon Killebrew, noting that Hodges as a higher batting average than either: Hodges has a .273 BA, while McCovey has .270, while Killebrew has a lowly .256. But this is not very valuable on its own. Batting average varies a great deal between leagues and eras, so one needs to consider BA relative to those factors. The lgBA for Hodges was .273 -- exactly what Gil hit! But the lgBA for McCovey was only .261, so McCovey's BA was 9 points higher than the average of his contemporaries. And Killebrew's lgBA was .259, which drastically alters one's perception of his lowly .256 mark.

But beyond that, one also needs to realize that BA is not why Willie and Harmon are in the HOF -- they are there for their massive power numbers. McCovey hit 521 HR and 1555 RBI, and had a .515 SLG percentage (compare with .388 lgSLG). Harmon hit 573 HR and 1584 RBI, and had a .509 SLG percentage (compare with .392 lgSLG). Compare these numbers with Hodges: 370 HR, 1274 RBI, and .487 SLG (compare with .420 lgSLG). While Willie and Harmon, did each have about 1,000 more at-bats than Gil, they clearly had more power (see esp. their higher SLG in eras with lower league average slugging)... and it is mostly because of their power that they are in the HOF.

Mr. Ryan then goes on with the same reasoning style by comparing Hodges hit total (1,921 -- which isn't very impressive frankly) with that of Frank Chance (1,273), Hank Greenberg (1,628)and George Kelly (1,778). But again, their career hit total is not the main reason these three are in the Hall of Fame. Chance was a high average hitter (.296 BA vs. .264 lgBA) with speed (401 SB) who had a fine eye at the plate (.394 OBP vs. .326 lgOBP). Even more importantly, Chance was a player-manager for most of his career, leading the Cubs (yes, the Cubs) to two World Series championships and two other NL pennants. Hodges' managerial career, 1969 notwithstanding, does not compare well.

Hank Greenberg is a Hall-of-Famer because, although his career was relatively short, his many strong seasons were very strong. Unlike Maris who had two really great years, Greenberg had seven of them (plus a few other mediocre ones). While he played during a very offensive era (the 1930s), his numbers are still impressive: .313 BA vs. .286 lgBA, .412 OBP vs. .361 lgOBP, and .605 SLG vs. .419 lgSLG. He had HR totals including 36, 40, 41, 44, and 58. And he had RBI totals including 127, 139, 146, 150, 170, and 183. He twice took home MVP honors, and four others times was in the top-10 in balloting.

George "Highpockets" Kelly is not in the HOF because of his lifetime hits either. He was a .297 hitter who five times had 100+ RBI. But actually, comparing Hodges with Kelly comitt a different HOF Fallacy. It is highly debateable whether Kelly should even be in the HOF. Bill James argues quite persuasively in his wonderful book What Ever Happend to the Hall of Fame? that the veterans committee, beginning in 1970, made a series of "simply appalling selections, littering the Hall of Fame with... [players] from the New York Giants (1919-1926) and the St. Louis Cardinals (1927-1937)." This was due to prominent members of the veterans committee at that time, most notably Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry, getting their teammates chosen. James goes into even greater depth on this issue in his book The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. He even goes so far as to say that Kelly might be the worst player in the Hall of Fame! And since he argues so well that Kelly was only nominated due to favoritism on the veterans' committee, comparing a player you are arguing in favor with Kelly just doesn't seem like a good strategy.

Mr. Ryan continues to compare Hodges lifetime home runs (370) with the likes of Greenberg (331) and Johnny Mize (359). As I already noted, Greenberg hit those HR during some truly outstanding seasons. Indeed, he smashed those 330 in only 5,193 at-bats, while it took Gil 7,030 at-bats. You can say the same, to a lesser extent, regarding Johnny Mize, who hit his 359 in only 6,443 at-bats, with 51 in 1947 being his career high. But again, Mize wasn't just about HR: he had a .312 BA vs. .274 lgBA, .397 OBP vs. .345 lgOBP, and .562 SLG vs. .395 lgSLG -- all of which are notably superior to Hodges' numbers.

The rest of Mr. Ryan's point about Hodges are all fine and well-taken. I won't argue against Gil's modesty and good character, although I will note that the famed 1969 World Series win was the lone bright spot of his managerial career (he had a lifetime .467 record as a manager).

None of this is to say that Hodges isn't at least a borderline candidate for the Hall of Fame, and perhaps, in the end deserving of the recognition. I'd consider him one of the ten most deserving currently up for consideration by the veterans' committee. But if you are going to argue in favor of him, you need to do so in a stronger way. The 1969 World Series aside, it is worth noting that Gil had seven consecutive 100+ RBI seasons. He had 11 consecutive 20+ HR seasons, and six of these were 30+. Granted he didn't run well (63 SB lifetime), but 1B usually aren't known for speed on the bases. He won three gold-gloves from 1957-59, and was an all-star 8 times. And while he never rated higher than 7th in the MVP balloting, he did get votes in 9 seasons. So those are all fine things won can say that are relevant when considering his HOF resume, and none of them commit classic HOF argument errors.

On the con side, however, won must consider his various HOF-relevant ratings. As we saw with Maris earlier, Hodges doesn't fair so well here:

• Black Ink: Batting - 2 (579) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
• Gray Ink: Batting - 128 (137) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
• HOF Standards: Batting - 31.7 (249) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
• HOF Monitor: Batting - 83.0 (197) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Far better than Maris on the Gray Ink, but not as well on Black Ink, and tied on HOF Monitor. And then consider the Similar Batter scores for Hodges:

1. Norm Cash (932)
2. George Foster (921)
3. Tino Martinez (921)
4. Jack Clark (916)
5. Boog Powell (898)
6. Joe Adcock (895)
7. Lee May (894)
8. Rocky Colavito (893)
9. Willie Horton (888)
10. Roy Sievers (880)

This perhaps a better looking list than Maris has. But none of these guys are, or should be, Hall of Famers.

Since I mentioned the wonderful The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, I thought I'd also toss some of his rankings of all-time 1B (through 2001 I think). He starts off of course with Gehrig and Foxx, followed by McGwire (one wonders if a newer version of his list would send McGwire plummeting due to the steroid scandal). Bagwell and Murray are enxt, but then we see four of the players Mr. Ryan mentioned ranked 6-9: Mize, Killebrew, Greenberg, and McCovey. Then come the likes of Frank Thomas (likely for HOF), Cap Anson, Don Mattingly (not in HOF), Tony Perez, and Will Clark (not in HOF). Then Dick Allen at 15th (not in HOF), Keith Hernandez (not in HOF), Orlando Cepeda, Dan Brouthers, and then another scandal-ridden star, Rafael Palmeiro. At 20th we have Norm Cash (not in HOF), then Fred McGriff (questionable for HOF), Roger Connor, Mickey Vernon (not in HOF), George Sisler, Frank Chance, Bill Terry, Boog Powell (not in HOF), Cecil Cooper (not in HOF), and Dolf Camilli (not in HOF). It is only here, at the 30th spot in the list, that we see Gil Hodges. And it is interesting that James' brief writeup for Hodges at this point is entirely centered on how "beloved" a player he was, and how well he was able to accept the public's adoration for him.

So in the end I'm on the fence about Gil Hodges and the HOF. But what I hope I've shown in this posting is that if you are going to argue for Hodges (or Maris even), you need argue with the right amunition, and not commit classic HOF Fallacies.