By Richard Heaton aka zanderlex
Currently, there is a huge debate on whether or not Student Athletes should be paid for participating in N.C.A.A. sporting events. There are some who believe that an athletic scholarship is all that a student needs while there are others who say that an athletic scholarship is nothing compared to how much money the N.C.A.A. pulls in each year per student.
During the final few days of September 2013, EA Sports and another sports licensing company settled with Student Athletes, which leaves the N.C.A.A. defending itself on its own. Because of this, drastic changes will begin all over colleges across America if the N.C.A.A. either loses the lawsuit or settles.
It hasn’t happened yet, though there is a simple way on how colleges could pay their athletes. Let’s pick a football conference with eight teams and have that conference pick a maximum amount that the schools would pay each player.
Let’s say that this maximum amount is five thousand dollars, each school would give the conference five thousand dollars per student and the conference would hold that money until the end of the season. At the end of the season, the money will be distributed to the players based on what place their schools have finished in.
The school that finishes in first place will get the maximum amount, which means that each athlete will receive the full five thousand dollars. The team that finishes in second place will distribute ninety percent of the amount to its players. Therefore each athlete of the second place team will receive a total of forty five hundred dollars.
The amount will decrease by ten percent per place all the way down to the team that finishes in eighth place. Each of their athletes will receive thirty percent of the maximum amount, or fifteen hundred dollars.
Each team puts in five thousand dollars per player, so what happens to the extra money that each of the bottom teams puts in? Each team will receive the extra money back, however they may have restrictions. This means that the last place team will get thirty five hundred dollars back per player.
Every now and then we have a good player who plays for a bad team, so how do we compensate for a player who played for the eighth place team, received fifteen hundred dollars, and led the conference in a certain stat? The answer is quite simple and is the basis of those restrictions mentioned earlier.
If a player leads the conference in a major stat but plays for a team that finishes in the bottom half of the conference, that player will be required to be given a percentage of the refund that their school received.
The eighth place school receives a thirty five hundred dollar refund per player, and there is a five hundred dollar decrease per place. This means that the fifth place team, the first of the bottom half will receive a refund of two thousand dollars.
Therefore, a conference leader could be paid a one thousand dollar bonus for being on the eighth place team with a two hundred dollars decrease per place which means a leader on the fifth place team will receive a two hundred dollar bonus.
It would also be possible for second place stat finishers to get a reward at a fifty percent rate which means five hundred dollars for playing on the eighth place team and one hundred dollars for playing on the fifth place team, and maybe even a twenty five percent rate for third place finishers.
There has also been a lot of talk that if athletes of big sports such as football and basketball were paid, then athletes of all other sports would have to be paid as well, no matter how small the sport.
This can also be fixed with the conference setting a maximum reward for each sport. With this, any given school in a certain conference could have a maximum amount of five thousand dollars for football and basketball, maybe two thousand dollars for baseball and soccer, and maybe even five hundred dollars for sports as small as Swimming and Volleyball.
Who knows, maybe a format like this would help the athletes, Colleges, and N.C.A.A.
Beware of the New Type of Printing
By Guy Mitchell aka sweetg1
The technology continues to improve. We went from rotary dial phones to push button phones. From there, the technology went to cell phones to where the smart phone is today. Technology is great, right? It’s what pays the bills in my household, as I work for a technology company in innovation. For the card hobby, we’ve seen the technology, as the industry went from the old, thin cardboard stock in the 40s and 50s to Upper Deck changing the game in 1989. From there, the industry went to the ultra-super-glossy refractoid cards (although it’s been documented that I’m not necessarily a fan of these cards, I do appreciate that it can be done). The changes to the industry made opening a pack of cards seem like Charlie finding the golden ticket in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
It’s been well documented that there are a lot of scam artists in the collectibles industry. The FBI was called when fake autographs appeared on the market. Did Ty Cobb really sign 100 Bill White baseballs? I think not. It hit the card industry too, as many counterfeit cards appeared in the market. You remember all of the counterfeit Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky rookie cards? It took the fun out of genuinely finding one of these gems, and it burned a lot of people, costing them lots of money. What made the counterfeits “easy” to spot was a few facts: 1) the picture quality was fuzzy or otherwise poor and 2) the card stock was different enough to the veteran that it felt different in their hands. However, to the novice collector, it was hard to tell and lots of innocent people were fooled. Given that the newer cards were drawing in lots of new collectors, the counterfeits came in droves to newer cards, as collectors didn’t have to pay much for a newer pack, hoping to strike gold. Not as many counterfeits were seen on older cards.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the world of 3D printing. For those not familiar with 3D printing, it is a way to print items in three dimensional space. For instance, a wrench, as shown in this youtube video could be recreated by using 3D printing: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ-aWFYT_SU[/URL]tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ-aWFYT_SU
It has caused some controversy because the concept of printing a weapon became real.
So what does this mean to the collectibles hobby? The picture quality and color could no longer become an issue for counterfeiting a Ken Griffey Jr. rookie card. Can you imagine capturing the color (as well as properly capturing the coloring of the borders) of a Mickey Mantle rookie? What about some of the newer cards? Your game used card or worse yet, your 1/1 printing plate of Yasiel Puig that is on eBay for a price of $2,500 or best offer? How easy would it be to create this with 3D print technology and sell it? And what about statues, like the Hartland Statues that sell for a pretty penny? Is the game changing?
Obviously, there are copyright laws that prevent people from doing such despicable deeds. However, it would seem that most criminals who prey on people (especially young collectors) with this kind of money don’t have morals or don’t care who they hurt. They’re not concerned about copyright laws. They care about printing up a bunch of these types of items and selling them cheap! Or, they will trade you their newly printed 1/1 printing plate for your real Jordan RC, where they can now trade or sell the Jordan RC. That’s how these people operate.
The point of this article isn’t to cause unnecessary fear in the collecting hobby, but to make people aware that bad things sometimes come with the good of the new technology. Obviously, we have to be sure of what we’re purchasing. We have to continue to buy from reputable dealers and know exactly what we’re purchasing. We must ask questions. However, I ask this: How will reputable dealers always know the difference between a real and a 3D print? 3D printing can be a game changer in places like eBay, where people can find items for 10% cost and places like SCF where people make hundreds of trades each day.
I’m curous about your thoughts on this. Is this as a genuine concern?
Let’s keep trading fun. Happy Collecting Everyone!
By James Friedman aka JFried1029
I need to begin by saying that when I was a kid, my family never had a dog. I suppose this was largely due to my brother’s allergies, but I don’t think this was necessarily the only reason. I don’t think my parents were big into pets.
My first wife was a big dog lover, but she realized that my obsessive-compulsiveness would never allow me to have dogs in the house and be at peace.
When I married my second wife, the kids wanted dogs and we went through four who either died, ran off, or were given back to the person who gave them to us for one reason or another.
When our house was broken into shortly after my father died, my wife decided that because I travel for work she wanted to have a dog in the house for protection. She went to the pet store looking for one type or another of dog and came home with a Shih-Tzu puppy my daughter named Peaches.
While the dog was really my wife’s dog, somehow he became attached to me. He shared my pillow and always barked at me when he needed to go out. Over the years he seemed to gravitate to me.
Once I found he was born the day my father died, I became convinced the dog was actually my father reincarnated. Peaches shares my father’s personality (stubborn and impatient to the maximum) and even physical features (he has an under-bite).
At times, Peaches can be annoying and I have threatened him that I was going to trade him for a turtle or even a possum, as they are much less effort.
Which leads me to how all of this relates to our hobby. One day the thought occurred to me: instead of trading Peaches for another animal, how great would it be if I could trade him for a 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 10? I know at least one exists.
A Mantle rookie in Gem Mint condition is beyond the realm of collecting reality for most of us. But what a thought! Then as with all potential trades, I started to think about the pros and cons of both sides of this deal.
Economically, the trade is not close. The last I saw; a graded gem mint Mantle rookie card goes for $100,000 or more. I’m not sure what pure-bred Shih-Tzus go for on the market these days (does Beckett have a price guide for dogs?), but I doubt a spoiled seven year old would be worth more than a few hundred dollars maximum.
But we also have to look beyond pure economics.
I pride myself on being an honest trader, so I do have to disclose some condition issues: while Peaches has not been bleached or trimmed, like many vintage cards have been, he would probably benefit from either or both.
He is definitely not in Mint condition; in fact he is dog-eared (sorry). I don’t know if his corners are sharp, but his teeth are, if that counts for something.
One the one hand, a Mantle rookie card will never jump on me to share my food or wake me up at six in the morning. The Mantle card will never fight with the other dogs in the house. Most certainly the Mantle card will never pee on the floor. A Mantle card will never cost me money for tags or veterinarian visits.
On the other hand, a Mantle rookie card will not lick me awake in the morning or jump on me excitedly when I return home every weekend from another week on the road. A Mantle rookie card also will not share my love for cookies every night.
The reality is that Peaches has given me more over the last seven plus years than I have given to him (and that’s saying something!). He has helped me with my obsessive-compulsive behavior in ways I could never have thought imaginable. And I love him.
I don’t expect to ever have to wonder how I would deal with the opportunity to make this trade because I obviously would never expect in my lifetime for someone to propose this offer to me.
After careful analysis I have decided the following:
• If the Mantle rookie card was graded a six or lower I am 100% sure would not make the trade.
• If the Mantle Rookie card was graded a seven, I would consider trading my son’s American Bulldog Nina for it (she’s another story).
• If the card was graded an eight, I would probably ask for something else to be thrown in, like a Mays rookie card, to sweeten the deal.
• If the Mantle card was graded a nine, I might be convinced to make the trade, but it would have to be a high-end nine
And if the card was graded a ten? While I consider this to be an event that is completely beyond all plausibility, one thing is for sure:
Peaches should be thankful that he will never get to find out for sure just what I would do.
By Raymond Lopez aka DJ_LILRAY
I grew up a basketball fan, love the sport, it was also a great time to be a fan of the game. With players like Magic, Bird, Robinson, Barkley, and the greatest of all time Michael Jordan. Over the years, basketball has really changed, not just for the game but for the fans as well. The only time I got to see all the great players of the game was when it was the all-star game or the 1992 Olympics that was a great year! Nowadays fans can see all the great players almost every game, with the leagues “Super Teams”. Basketball just isn’t the same. Back then, every team had a superstar on the floor, players were loyal and as well as fans. I have been a Phoenix Suns since the first time I saw the game being played. Now, with the 2013 season drawing near I can’t even name the starting five (I don’t even think coaches can do that right now). The league can improve by stopping the making of these super teams. If your team is not in the “Big Market City” you basically don’t have a chance. With a rule like that I think players will become more loyal to the teams as well as some fans out there.
Being in the Hall Of Fame is a wonderful accomplishment if you are basketball player and the 90s in the NBA were filled with them, but yet so many are not in the Hall Of Fame. Players like Mitch Richmond, Tim Hardaway,Maurice Cheeks just to name of few. These players made up basketball in the 80s and 90s and yet, every year it seems great players likeDanny Manning or Bill Laimbeer don’t get in. I think the NBA should really take a good look into all the great players and really take into consideration what these players did for the great game of basketball.
Pro sports have really changed over the years with the increase of tickets prices as well as food and beverages at games. The price of players’ jerseys and the fact that they don’t just have home and away jerseys don’t help. Now they have on-field,blackout, Elite, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day jerseys available and they’re not cheap! The plain basic version will set you back 100 dollars. Packs of cards were around 99 cents in 1990. 2013 you can buy a pack of 4 Topps Five Star cards for around 500 dollars. Times are a lot harder now and with players wanting a bigger contract then the rest of the league, it does not help the fan out one bit! Very few players are there for the fans nowadays… Some don’t sign autographs, most get a paper cut and want to sit out the next game,.To get paid to do what you love doing is the best thing, but I think players forgot what the whole point of sports is. About going and enjoying the game you love to play, to put everything you have on the field every game, to remember the greats that played before you and continuing to respect the game and the fans that give up a lot just to watch them play.
This is my first contest writing for SCF, Heck I don’t even like writing papers for my college classes, but I thought why not, I love this site. It’s what the card collecting hobby is all about. About being a kid again and collecting your favorite team or player on a piece of cardboard. Trading with friends and taking it to a whole new level, I traded with people from Puerto Rico and NewYork, while I live in Arizona. This site is truly a great site to forget about the stress of the world and be a kid again while trying to trade a Mark Price basketball card for a Larry Johnson card because you loved the Grandma commercials from the 90s. Yes, this is a great site to relax and look at cards.The one thing I would add (don’t know if it is on here and I just not have found it) is photo sharing like the photo bucket site. Or a price guide would be helpful. Since I never have a Beckett in hand while trading. Other than that, great site and I’m glad to be a part of it!
By Richard Heaton aka Zanderlex
It is true that baseball is America’s pastime and has been around for well over a hundred years, but there are still quite a few changes that could better influence the MLB as a whole. For example, every few years, the world comes together to take part in the World Baseball Classic (“WBC”). The WBC is a tradition that has been going on for the past eight years and seems to be growing. However, the WBC does seem to be imposing a few challenges on MLB.
One of these challenges is that the WBC takes place during Spring training, a time that is meant for all MLB players to get ready for the upcoming season. Those who are picked to represent their country will now have to miss some of that valuable playing time to play overseas.
Another problem in this sense would be rookies and prospects who are chosen to play in the WBC because Spring training means even more to them than veteran players as it is the time for them to show their worth to the team.
How do we fix this? By moving parts of the WBC to another month, maybe even during All Star week. Imagine having the All Star Futures Game and the Legends Softball Game on Saturday and having the WBC Championship on Sunday, which would then be followed by the Home Run Derby and the All Star Game on Monday and Tuesday.
Maybe we can move both the championship game and the semi finals to All Star week, this would allow all of the players to get a few extra days with their teams before the season starts. If the semi finals are used as well, one semi final matchup would be held Friday afternoon while the second match would be held that evening. The championship match will be played Saturday and then regular All Star week festivities would begin. Not only would this be a great way to help the players stay with their teams longer, but a lot of revenue would be raised.
The finals were played at AT&T park in front of roughly 35,000 fans. That’s not a bad number, but if you squeeze the final three games during the All Star week, a lot more fans would end up watching the game because just by placing it days before the All Star Game, it will feel more energized to the fans.
Another way to Improve the MLB would be to add another team to each League. Each league would now have 16 teams, and would be split into four divisions of four teams each. With fewer teams in each division, the competition would most likely be greater because some divisions may play well and have all four teams within 5-10 games of 1st place.
If there are four divisions, there would really be no need for a wild card spot because each league will now have four playoff spots, one from each division. However, there is a way to keep the five team playoff format that MLB now has, but there will also be a way to have six teams in each league compete in the playoffs.
This will equate to four division leaders and two Wild card teams. The Wild Card series will have each pair of teams play a best of three series. After this, each league will have three teams remaining. During the Division series each team will play each other team once. As an example, let’s say we have the Dodgers, Cardinals, and Braves left.
On Day one, the Dodgers play the Braves and the Cardinals get off. Day two, we see the Cardinals play the Dodgers while the Braves get off. On the final day, the Cardinals play the Braves, and the Dodgers are off. This format will allow all games to be played over the course of three days with each team getting a day off. The two teams with the best record go on to the Championship series. This is where it gets tricky, if all three teams win one game apiece, the team with the worst regular season record will be eliminated and the other two go on to the Championship series. The Championship series will be best of five, and then the World Series will stay as a best of 7 series. Some might say that having these four series will extend the length of the playoffs, but instead it will actually shorten it. This is because the most games that can be played during the current structure is 20 which is from one wild card game, five division games, and seven games for both the Championship series and World Series.
This 12 team playoff structure consists of three game Wild Card, three game Division Series (two per team), five game Championship series, and a seven game World Series for a maximum total of 18 games.
It would also be possible to have the Championship Series stay at seven games and then the playoff structure would also have 20 games.
There are many other ways that the MLB can be improved upon, but these are the biggest two.
By Pedro Maicazo aka metsmagic18
Gil Hodges is a revered player and manager who led the New York Mets to a World Series title, and the Brooklyn and Los Angeles Dodgers to numerous pennants and titles. He was beloved by fans and teammates, and was known as “The Quiet Man” for his gentle demeanor on and off the field. Despite all this, he is one of the greatest players not to enter the Hall of Fame. This has always troubled me, but now I’m really going to look into the possible reasons why he has been kept out.
Statistician, author, and former Red Sox employee Bill James compiled a list of 16 fair criteria that a player should pass to be allowed in the Hall of Fame. To figure out if Hodges belongs, we will see if he truly belongs with the all-time greats, or if he was just a nice guy who happened to play for some good teams.
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he
was active, suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
I don’t think there is a better way to see if he was regarded as the best player in baseball than to look at MVP voting, the award that is more or less given to the best player in baseball. Gil finished in the top 10 of MVP voting 4 times, (and once 11th). So no, he was not the best player in baseball while he was active, but quotes from Stan Musial and Pee Wee Reese each spoke on his behalf, calling him the best player at his position of his time. Musial says of Hodges: “Perhaps the best first baseman of his time”. Pee Wee Reese says: “If you had a son, it would be a great thing to have him grow up to be just like Gil Hodges”. Teammate Tommy Lasorda says: “He was a great, great, great player. We have to get him in (to the Hall of Fame)”.
Was he the best player on his team?
No. But he was a close second. Duke Snider was the best Dodger while Gil Hodges played for them, but I think it is fair to put Hodges second. He had 6 30+ home run seasons and 2 40+ home run seasons while driving in 100+ runs 7 years in a row. Campanella had 4 seasons of 30+ home runs, 1 season of 40+ home runs, and 3 seasons of driving in 100+ runs. Could Campanella have had a better career if he had not had a late career start due to the color barrier, and an early end due to a car accident? Yes, but sadly these things did occur, and Hodges stats are simply better. Robinson meant more to the game of baseball than Hodges without a doubt, but is he a better player than Hodges? It is difficult to tell, due to their very different strengths and stats.
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player
in the league at his position?
The answer to this question is a resounding yes. During the 1950s, he led all Major League first basemen in home runs, games, at bats, runs, hits, RBI, total bases, and extra base hits. He was and 8 time all-star, the most of any first basemen while he played, and won the first 3 Gold Gloves ever awarded. Among all players, regardless of position, Hodges was second in home runs and RBI during the 1950s.
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Gil Hodges had an impact on just about every NL pennant race from 1948 to 1959. He won 2 World Series and 7 NL pennants. He is known for his disastrous performance in the 1952 World Series, where he started 0 for 21, but should be recognized for his important contributions in the Dodgers 1955 World Championship and 1956 NL Pennant win. In the ’55 World Series, Hodges hit a go-ahead home run in game 4 to go along with an RBI single, followed by scoring the winning run in game 5. In the decisive game 7, it was he who drove in both runs for the Dodgers in their 2-0 win. In ’56 he had a go-ahead three run home run in game 1, 4 RBI in game 2, scored the go ahead run in game three, and two RBI doubles in that same game. He would end his career with 21 World Series RBI and 5 home runs.
Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after his prime?
From Hodges 35th birthday onward, he played 100+ games in three consecutive seasons, hitting 25 long balls and driving in 80 runs in one of those seasons. After leaving the Dodgers, he had a respectable 1962 before retiring at age 39 in 1963. He fared much better than his teammate Duke Snider, who would retire at age 37 after a weak 1962, an acceptable 1963 and a miserable 1964.
Is he the best player in baseball history who isn’t in the Hall of Fame?
Yes, he is. He is the player who was the closest to induction without getting in. Other greats not in the Hall are respectable shortstop Alan Trammell, speedy Tim Raines, and deserving pitcher Jack Morris. If I had to, I would honestly put Hodges second to Jeff Bagwell on this list. (I am not including players who have only been up for one year) Bagwell was a much better hitter, and added a Gold Glove to his resume.
Are most players with comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Using BR’s “similarity scores”, I was surprised to find that the answer to this question is more or less no. The 4 players who are ranked as “truly similar” to Gil, are George Foster, Jack Clark, Norm Cash, and Rocky Colavito. All of these men were never really considered Hall of Famers. Though their stats are alike, only Cash had the character of Hodges, and never managed teams to World Series titles. Similarly, Foster, Clark, and Cash were all never known as good fielders, combining for 0 Gold Gloves. Clark was never the best player at his position, nor was Colavito. Colavito’s stats are impressive, but drop off after he turns 33. Clark and Cash appeared in one World Series, Colavito appeared in zero. Foster was a contributor to the Big Red Machine, but had a huge ego problem, which would result in his release from the Mets in 1986. The player, who matches up best to Hodges, is in the Hall of Fame. This is Tony Perez. 9 home runs, 400 RBI, .006 batting average, and one all-star selection separate Perez and Hodges. They both appeared in multiple World Series, and won multiple titles. They were each one of the best on their team, but Perez has 0 Gold Gloves. These two men are extremely similar, yet Perez made the Hall of Fame in 2000.
Do the players’ numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
In James official standards, he is just short, just like his current efforts to get into the Hall. His rank on the Gray Ink scale is 128, an average Hall of Famer would have 144. On the Black Ink scale he has a score of 2, a Hall of Famer would have 27. By the Hall of Fame monitor scale he has a score of 83, while a likely Hall of Famer would rank with 100. Last, on the Hall of Fame Standards scale, he has 32 points, while an average Hall of Famer would have 50. We will have to credit Hodges with a “no” for this question.
Is there evidence to suggest he was significantly better or worse than his statistics suggest he was?
He was the best first baseman fielding-wise of his time, missed three years early in his career due to World War II, and is one of the most respected players and leaders of his day.
Is he the best eligible player at his position that isn’t in the Hall of Fame?
Now that Orlando Cepeda and Tony Perez are in, he is the best eligible player at his position besides Bagwell. Don Mattingly and Keith Hernandez do not have the offensive stats to make the Hall of Fame, and the only other comparison would be Steve Garvey, who is closer to the Hall of Fame standards set by James, but has never received even half of the votes necessary.
How many MVP type seasons did he have? Did he ever win? If not, how many times was he close?
He had MVP quality seasons in 1951 and 1954. In 1954 his 42 home runs and 130 RBI while playing in every game of the season with a .302 average were not enough, as he finished 10th, behind pitchers Robin Roberts and Johnny Antonelli. Teammates Pee Wee Reese and Duke Snider, and Al Dark, Stan Musial, and Joe Adcock, who all had worse home run and RBI numbers than Hodges, with Dark hitting lower than Hodges. While Willie Mays won, with less home runs and RBI than Hodges, it was 2nd place finisher Ted Kluszewski who deserved the award. Putting up better numbers than anyone else in the league. In 1951, Hodges was hurt by a low average as he finished 16th in the voting, but deserved to be in the top ten.
How many All-Star games was he selected to? Are most of the other players with this many selections in the Hall of Fame?
Hodges had 8 selections including 7 in a row. 14 players with 8 selections are in the Hall of Fame.
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
This is the toughest of all. The answer to this is no. The protection he got with Snider hitting above him really helped him, and without Snider, the Dodgers would be contender, but probably not a pennant winner. They would need an additional bat in that lineup, Hodges and Campanella with Robinson and Reese and the top would not be enough.
What impact did he have on baseball history, rule changes, new equipment or legal matters?
He certainly didn’t have an impact on new equipment, legal matters, or rule changes. But history remembers him as a kind hearted hero, slugger, and a great role model for any fan of the game.
Did he make a positive contribution to the game outside of his playing career, through off-the-field events or as a coach, manager, or executive?
He made a huge contribution, managing the 1969 Mets to their first World Championship and changing the perception of the team forever. The Mets, for these contributions retired Hodges’ number, 14. Sadly, while still managing, he passed away, leaving us to wonder if he could have helped the game in another way.
Did he uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs its voters to consider?
100% yes, Hodges absolutely upheld the standards of sportsmanship. He won the Lou Gehrig Award, given to the player displaying the most character and sportsmanship in 1959. He is considered one of the nicest guys in baseball history. Treated his teammates with dignity and respect, which was what he received from them in return. Besides the respect of his teammates, family members, and newspaper writers, the players he managed all refer to him in the highest regard (except for Hawk Harrelson, who I will never understand). Due to this, he was given the nickname “Quiet Man”.
Wrap-up: Is Hodges a Hall of Famer? Yes, he meets 10 of the 16 criteria for a Hall of Famer (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16). The only reason that I don’t say 11, is that if I’m using Bill James stats, it is only fair to put Garvey ahead of Hodges.