I do not understand why Gil Hodges does not get your support, as well as others, for the Hall of Fame. He hit at least 30 home runs in six years, including five years in a row from 1950 to 1954. He had over 100 RBI each season from 1949 to 1955. He hit 370 career home runs and played in seven World Series, six with Brooklyn and one with Los Angeles, not to mention managing the Mets to the 1969 World Series.

The core of his career was from 1949 to 1959 when he was one of the best players in the game. His HR, RBI and BA for those seasons:

1949  23  115  .285               
1950  32  113  .283
1951  40  103  .268
1952  32  102  .254
1953  31  122  .302
1954  42  130  .304
1955  27  102  .289
1956  32   87  .265
1957  27   98  .299
1958  22   64  .259
1959  25   80  .276

These were impressive numbers by the standards of the day. I know they are not slam-duck numbers, but that's why he is being considered by the Veterans Committee. He gets extra points for his leadership and integrity. Additionally, he was a terrific fielding first baseman, winning three Gold Gloves. He finished in the top 10 in home runs 10 times, and finished in the Top 10 in the MVP voting three times. He was a major force for a decade of baseball. Plus, he feels like a Hall of Famer, doesn't he?

Yes. I am a Mets fan. And a Gil Hodges fan. But I am totally unbiased! Surely you can see that!

Mitch Schuman

A baseball fan, biased? Nah, I'd never think that.

Look, for most of his career Hodges played half his games in a great hitter's park (which helps explain the home runs) and he batted behind a lot of great hitters (which helps explain the RBI). I wrote about Hodges at length in my book, Baseball Dynasties, and what I discovered is that he was not considered a great player when he was active. This is a big RBI guy on a great team, and the best he ever did in the MVP voting was eighth. Every single post-World War II Hall of Famer has finished at least seventh in one MVP vote, and the great majority did much better. Including a number of Duke Snider's teammates.

He was Joe Carter, basically. Or Boog Powell, or Rocky Colavito. And considering how many first basemen are in the Hall of Fame already, and how many more will be (Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, probably Rafael Palmeiro, etc.), I just can't justify supporting a player who wasn't ever considered truly great in his own time.

-rob

Rob --

Interesting analysis on the new Vets committee. Some observations and comments:

Curt Flood the ballplayer does not belong in the HoF. But what about Curt Flood the pioneer?

I believe that Marvin Miller has a very strong chance of being elected. You can't write the history of baseball without writing about Marvin Miller. And many of the voters in this election played while Miller was in office.

If you are going to vote for Miller, you have to think about Curt Flood in the same light. True, he lost his case, but his actions started a chain of events that led to the Messersmith/McNally decision.

Aside from Flood, we have the question not of "what defines a Hall of Famer", but, "To what extent are the standards for election by the Vets Committee different than the BBWAA standards, and to what extent should they be?" I think of the BBWAA electees and the Vets Committee electees as being in two separate "virtual" institutions, one more prestigious than the other.

I would be inclined to pass on Carl Mays, if only because of the pitch that killed Ray Chapman.

If given the vote, I'd probably go for Flood as a player-pioneer, Minnie Minoso (for his combined career), Ron Santo as a player, Joe Torre and Hodges as player-managers (with Torre having a stronger resume than Hodges), Charlie Finley and Peter O'Malley as owners (on the grounds that you can't write the history of the game without these two), Whitey Herzog as manager and Miller as a pioneer.

Stuart Schulman

I read the news about Pudge considering playing in Japan, and I wondered what kind of impact a mid-career move like that would have on a player's Hall of Fame chances. Yes, Pudge has a pretty good case already, but it would be interesting to see if the voters took into consideration his "second" career. I suppose it will be the same thing if Ichiro plays here long enough to put up decent counting stats. Just wondering what you thought about re: the validity of counting Japanese stats.

Sign me,
xxxxx

First off, I think that Ivan Rodriguez has already done enough to merit election to the Hall of Fame. What's more, I think he would make it if he retired today, because 1) he's one of the dozen or so best catchers ever, and 2) he's done the things that the voters love (high batting average, MVP season, etc.)

But should his Japanese stats "count" when we're considering his Hall of Fame case? No, I don't think they should. Not at all.

There are people who think that the Hall of Fame should make a place for the great Japanese players, like Sadaharu Oh and others. Personally, I find this position completely ridiculous. It's called the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and so I think it's more than reasonable to restrict membership to those who played in this nation. And that's to say nothing of tradition.

And wouldn't it work the other way, too? If Oh belongs in Cooperstown, then doesn't Aaron belong in the Japanese Hall of Fame?

Now, I think it's reasonable to give a player credit for seasons he "missed" through no fault of his own. Usually, we use this rule to cover players who got a late start because of the color line that existed until 1947, and players who lost a portion of their career to military service. But if Pudge goes to Japan, that's a choice that he has made. I'm not saying that it's a poor choice, but it's a choice. To me, it's like missing time during a strike. It's your choice and I won't blame you for it, but neither will I fill in the blanks for you.

And if Pudge really wants to get elected to the Hall of Fame, he should probably get in at least another year or two on this side of the Pacific.

There's one more topic that I wanted to explore, but I accidentally deleted the e-mail message so I'll just tell you that one reader wanted to know what I thought about Curt Flood as a Hall of Fame candidate.

As I mentioned in another column recently, Flood is on the Veterans Committee ballot this year ... and as a player Flood doesn't have much of a case.

In his New Historical Baseball Abstract Bill James rates Flood the 36th-greatest center fielder of all time. And Bill is a big Curt Flood fan. Curt Flood was about as good as Andy Van Slyke, and Clyde Milan, and Kenny Lofton.

Yes, I know that Flood challenged the reserve clause, and he certainly deserves credit, along with a large measure of fame, for taking that risk (a risk that essentially killed his career). But it seems to me that Flood has gotten the credit and the fame that he deserves. If you don't know who Curt Flood was now, you're not going to know who he was even if he's in the Hall.

Curt Flood was one hell of a ballplayer, and one hell of a courageous man. But I wouldn't put him in the Hall of Fame.

Senior writer Rob Neyer, whose Big Book of Baseball Lineups will be published next spring by Fireside, will be appearing here regularly and irregularly during the offseason.