Worst player in any Hall of Fame

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by rats60

Joe Namath is a no brainer for the Hof. 2 MVP awards. Only QB to throw for 4k yards under the old rules. Bart Starr never threw for 2500 yards. Bob Griese never threw for 2500 yards. Len Dawson never threw for 2900 yards. All contemporaries of Namath and in the Hof.

Baseball - Tommy McCarthy
Football - Bob Hayes
Basketball - Bill Bradley

So because he threw the ball a TON more than other QB's of his era he was great???

The two years he won MVP he threw as many INT's as TD's and completed barely 50% of his passes. Just because some yutz gives you an award doesn't mean you are great.

You also seem to conveniently have left out contemporaries like Unitas and Tarkenton and focused on good QB's from run oriented teams.

QB Rating

Namath - 65.5
Starr - 80.5
Griese - 77.4
Dawson - 82.6
Tarkenton - 80.4
Unitas - 78.2

Completion Percentage

Namath - 50.1
Starr - 57.4
Griese - 56.2
Dawson - 57.1
Tarkenton - 57
Unitas - 54.6

Interception Percentage

Namath - 5.8
Starr - 4.4
Griese - 5
Dawson - 4.9
Tarkenton - 4.1
Unitas - 4.9

Now just for grins and giggles let's look at some NON-HOF guys of his era with similar numbers

Rating

Lamonica - 72.9
Roman Gabriel (Who won an MVP) - 74.3
Norm Snead - 65.5


Completion %

Lamonica - 49.5
Gabriel - 52.6
Snead - 52.3

INT%

Lamonica - 5.3
Gabriel - 3.3!!!
Snead - 5.9

It's pretty obvious which group Namath belongs in and he's not even the class of that group!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

So because he threw the ball a TON more than other QB's of his era he was great???

The two years he won MVP he threw as many INT's as TD's and completed barely 50% of his passes. Just because some yutz gives you an award doesn't mean you are great.

You also seem to conveniently have left out contemporaries like Unitas and Tarkenton and focused on good QB's from run oriented teams.

QB Rating

Namath - 65.5
Starr - 80.5
Griese - 77.4
Dawson - 82.6
Tarkenton - 80.4
Unitas - 78.2

Completion Percentage

Namath - 50.1
Starr - 57.4
Griese - 56.2
Dawson - 57.1
Tarkenton - 57
Unitas - 54.6

Interception Percentage

Namath - 5.8
Starr - 4.4
Griese - 5
Dawson - 4.9
Tarkenton - 4.1
Unitas - 4.9

Now just for grins and giggles let's look at some NON-HOF guys of his era with similar numbers

Rating

Lamonica - 72.9
Roman Gabriel (Who won an MVP) - 74.3
Norm Snead - 65.5


Completion %

Lamonica - 49.5
Gabriel - 52.6
Snead - 52.3

INT%

Lamonica - 5.3
Gabriel - 3.3!!!
Snead - 5.9

It's pretty obvious which group Namath belongs in and he's not even the class of that group!

Yes it is obvious. He belongs in the middle of the Hof class. Never said he was the best QB of his era, he was just better than some contemporaries in the Hof. Nice strawman though.

Namath was also voted the greatest QB in AFL history, over Griese, Dawson and Lamonica. I'll take the word of those yutz who saw them play over some random internet poster who probably didn't.

[Bill77]

My choice would be Rube Marquard. He was about as bad of a choice as Lloyd Waner.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by rats60

Yes it is obvious. He belongs in the middle of the Hof class. Never said he was the best QB of his era, he was just better than some contemporaries in the Hof. Nice strawman though.

Namath was also voted the greatest QB in AFL history, over Griese, Dawson and Lamonica. I'll take the word of those yutz who saw them play over some random internet poster who probably didn't.

Not sure how comparing him statistically to the QB's YOU mentioned in a statistical comparison is a strawman, but OK.

[clydepepper]

Worst or Least Deserving Baseball Hall-of-Famers* - IMHO

*-those elected primarily based on their MLB record as a player.

in no particular order -after the first one anyway:

Tommy McCarthy
Rick Ferrell
Jesse Haines
Fred Lindstrom
Jim Bunning
Don Drysdale
Rube Marquard
Eppa Rixey
Jack Chesbro
Ed Walsh
Lloyd Waner
Victor Willis
Joe Gordon
Chuck Klein
Phil Rizzuto
Peewee Reese
Ray Schalk
...
and, to be sure...Tinker to Evers to Chance.



Also IMHO, Minnie Minoso and Luis Tiant, Jr. were better than any of these.

-

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Worst or Least Deserving Baseball Hall-of-Famers* - IMHO

*-those elected primarily based on their MLB record as a player.

in no particular order -after the first one anyway:

Tommy McCarthy
Rick Ferrell
Jesse Haines
Fred Lindstrom
Jim Bunning
Don Drysdale
Rube Marquard
Eppa Rixey
Jack Chesbro
Ed Walsh
Lloyd Waner
Victor Willis
Joe Gordon
Chuck Klein
Phil Rizzuto
Peewee Reese
Ray Schalk
...
and, to be sure...Tinker to Evers to Chance.



Also IMHO, Minnie Minoso and Luis Tiant, Jr. were better than any of these.

-

Have to take issue with Pee Wee being on this list. Most people allow for wartime adjustments, but even with losing 3 PRIME years to WWII (age 24 - 26) he had a WAR of 66. In all likelihood that would be at least 84 with those three years back. He had a 5.7 the year before the war and a 6 the year back from the war so his war WAR should be in that range, possibly better.

Most guys at 66 WAR are in the HOF, at 84 you're a shoo-in. other numbers adjusted conservatively for those three missing years:

Runs 1580
Hits 2620
2b 390
3b 100
hr 138
rbi 1150

Those are HOF raw numbers to me for a shortstop even if he wasn't considered a superior fielder (which he was) if you prefer raw numbers.

I do agree that TIant is far superior to a number of enshrined pitches, as are Jim Kaat and Tommy John, that doesn't necessarily mean I think they belong either though.

[irv]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Worst or Least Deserving Baseball Hall-of-Famers* - IMHO

*-those elected primarily based on their MLB record as a player.

in no particular order -after the first one anyway:

Tommy McCarthy
Rick Ferrell
Jesse Haines
Fred Lindstrom
Jim Bunning
Don Drysdale
Rube Marquard
Eppa Rixey
Jack Chesbro
Ed Walsh
Lloyd Waner
Victor Willis
Joe Gordon
Chuck Klein
Phil Rizzuto
Peewee Reese
Ray Schalk
...
and, to be sure...Tinker to Evers to Chance.



Also IMHO, Minnie Minoso and Luis Tiant, Jr. were better than any of these.

-

It's a travesty that Minnie Minoso is not in the Hall of Fame.

It just boggles the mind how the HOF let this happen.
http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news...f1utvju92wsadk
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...e-hall-of-fame

[steve B]

Namath is STILL pretty amazing.

I saw a show where he visited the Jets camp. He watched some practice scrimmage, and one young QB was doing pretty badly. After checking with the coach Namath took the kid aside and told him something about how his feet were in the wrong position and moving too much and that was why he wasn't throwing hard enough or accurately enough to avoid the defense. The sent one of the recievers out. Reciever goes out like 10-15 yards, and Namath tells him "no, go OUT...I can still throw" and drops a pass right in his hands maybe 40 yards out. In street clothes, dress shoes, and at probably around 70 years old.

Kid tries it, lots of instant improvement. Gets back into practice, goes a few downs, gets sloppy again. Gets called over for a refresher by Namath and seems to either not get it or have excuses. Namath shrugs says some thing like well, it's your career, and walks away. The coach didn't look too happy with the new guy.

Steve B

[packs]

Burleigh Grimes

Managers:

Whitey Herzog, why him? One title.

[Donscards]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Worst or Least Deserving Baseball Hall-of-Famers* - IMHO

*-those elected primarily based on their MLB record as a player.

in no particular order -after the first one anyway:

Tommy McCarthy
Rick Ferrell
Jesse Haines
Fred Lindstrom
Jim Bunning
Don Drysdale
Rube Marquard
Eppa Rixey
Jack Chesbro
Ed Walsh
Lloyd Waner
Victor Willis
Joe Gordon
Chuck Klein
Phil Rizzuto
Peewee Reese
Ray Schalk
...
and, to be sure...Tinker to Evers to Chance.



Also IMHO, Minnie Minoso and Luis Tiant, Jr. were better than any of these.

-

What about Enos Slaughter.

[Tabe]

Enos had a career OPS+ of 124 and WAR of 55.3. Not exactly HOF-caliber but far, far from the worst in the HOF.

Of the names mentioned so far, at least for baseball, is either Ray Schalk (career OPS+ of 83) or Phil Rizzuto are the worst. Rizzuto stole an MVP in 1950 and, other than that, basically did nothing his whole career. Schalk did less than that.

[Tabe]

If we go with "least-deserving" instead of "worst", Candy Cummings has a case for the baseball HOF. Just 6 years in the bigs and a probably-not-true story of inventing the curveball are his creds. He was pretty good for 5 of his 6 years, hence the "not worst" but still...6 years.

[egri]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Eppa Rixey

I heard a story somewhere that when Rixey got the call telling him he had been inducted, he said "Me? They must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel!"

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Not sure how comparing him statistically to the QB's YOU mentioned in a statistical comparison is a strawman, but OK.

Of the guys you listed, adjusted net yards per attempt, Namath is 3rd behind Tark and Griese. Yards per catch, Namath is 2nd behind only Lamonica. The season he threw for 4k yards, he led the league in yards per attempt. He set the record because he was the best, not because he threw a lot.

Namath threw a lot of incompletions because he was the best at avoiding sacks. Of all the top quarterbacks of his era, Namath had the lowest sack rate. Throwing an incompletion is far better than taking a sack. I would suggest you actually Google some articles on Namath since you obviously didn't see him play. He was one of the best quarterbacks of his era when healthy and that is why he is in the hof.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by rats60

Of the guys you listed, adjusted net yards per attempt, Namath is 3rd behind Tark and Griese. Yards per catch, Namath is 2nd behind only Lamonica. The season he threw for 4k yards, he led the league in yards per attempt. He set the record because he was the best, not because he threw a lot.

Namath threw a lot of incompletions because he was the best at avoiding sacks. Of all the top quarterbacks of his era, Namath had the lowest sack rate. Throwing an incompletion is far better than taking a sack. I would suggest you actually Google some articles on Namath since you obviously didn't see him play. He was one of the best quarterbacks of his era when healthy and that is why he is in the hof.

Never mind, read it wrong

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

Yes it is obvious. He belongs in the middle of the Hof class. Never said he was the best QB of his era, he was just better than some contemporaries in the Hof. Nice strawman though.

Namath was also voted the greatest QB in AFL history, over Griese, Dawson and Lamonica. I'll take the word of those yutz who saw them play over some random internet poster who probably didn't.

appeal to authority logical fallacy. The stats tell us who he is, not some proclamation by a self described expert/sportswriter. Namath is not only NOT EVEN CLOSE to a HOF'er. he is BY FAR the worst QB in it.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

appeal to authority logical fallacy. The stats tell us who he is, not some proclamation by a self described expert/sportswriter. Namath is not only NOT EVEN CLOSE to a HOF'er. he is BY FAR the worst QB in it.

Just because you can't win at fantasy football with Namath, doesn't mean he wasn't a Hofer. I trust experts over someone who doesn't understand the stats he quotes. Completion percentage is a bad stat. From 1965-74, Namath had the lowest sack rate, highest yards per completion and highest net yards per attempt of any quarterback. That was because Namath had a quick release and was able to throw the ball away instead of taking a sack and losing yards. To those that play the game, that is a good thing.

Even when you consider his high number of interceptions with adjusted net yards per attempt, Namath is still 3rd, .05 yards behind Hofer Fran Tarkenton, .01 yards behind Hofer Sonny Jorgensen and ahead of Hofers Len Dawson and Bob Griese.

When you throw in the NFL records he set for yards in a season, only QB to throw for 4k yards under the old rules, and 3 3k passing yards seasons, 2 MVPs as well as his Super Bowl, Namath is a no brainer for the Hof.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

Just because you can't win at fantasy football with Namath, doesn't mean he wasn't a Hofer. I trust experts over someone who doesn't understand the stats he quotes. Completion percentage is a bad stat. From 1965-74, Namath had the lowest sack rate, highest yards per completion and highest net yards per attempt of any quarterback. That was because Namath had a quick release and was able to throw the ball away instead of taking a sack and losing yards. To those that play the game, that is a good thing.

Even when you consider his high number of interceptions with adjusted net yards per attempt, Namath is still 3rd, .05 yards behind Hofer Fran Tarkenton, .01 yards behind Hofer Sonny Jorgensen and ahead of Hofers Len Dawson and Bob Griese.

When you throw in the NFL records he set for yards in a season, only QB to throw for 4k yards under the old rules, and 3 3k passing yards seasons, 2 MVPs as well as his Super Bowl, Namath is a no brainer for the Hof.

A- modern stats have nothing to do with fantasy football you decrepit old man, just because you live in the past doesn't mean the rest of us have to as well

B- when your appoximate value number is next to Sims and Batkowski you are not a HOF'er now matter how you try and cherry pick

C- completion % is THE MOST IMPORTANT STAT FOR QUARTERBACKS, if you can't hit what you are aiming at, what good are you? 60% is considered acceptable under that and you are becoming a bum

D- Namath is a bum, the most overrated player in the history of the NFL anf unworthy of even a hall of the pretty good.

[packs]

I don't think Namath is a HOFer for the same reason I don't think Reggie Jackson is. When you have more interceptions than touchdowns, or more strike outs than hits, there is something glaring about that kind of stat. It doesn't suggest all time great to me.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think Namath is a HOFer for the same reason I don't think Reggie Jackson is. When you have more interceptions than touchdowns, or more strike outs than hits, there is something glaring about that kind of stat. It doesn't suggest all time great to me.

Does that mean you don't think Jim Thome is a HOFer?

I do.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

A- modern stats have nothing to do with fantasy football you decrepit old man, just because you live in the past doesn't mean the rest of us have to as well

B- when your appoximate value number is next to Sims and Batkowski you are not a HOF'er now matter how you try and cherry pick

C- completion % is THE MOST IMPORTANT STAT FOR QUARTERBACKS, if you can't hit what you are aiming at, what good are you? 60% is considered acceptable under that and you are becoming a bum

D- Namath is a bum, the most overrated player in the history of the NFL anf unworthy of even a hall of the pretty good.

Completion % can be important, but is there a modern stat that covers drops related to completion %?

It's going back a ways, but I recall the moment I stopped caring about completion %. A game where Bledsoe was being ripped a bit by the announcers for having a "bad game" because he was something like 6/12....Of course they didn't mention the two passes that hit open receivers on the number and still ended up on the ground. Or the one that hit the receiver on the hands that simply didn't get caught. So he should have been 9/12, maybe better.
And do they eliminate when the QB throws the ball away?
drops and intentional throw aways are entirely different from bad passes.

And how bad was Namaths completion %? I checked a couple years. 1966, he had a 49.3% rate. The league average was 46.3 and the best team was at 52.8%
So not actually too bad.
Oh, but you'll say the entire AFL was awful.
So lets try 72?
Namath 50%
League average 51.7
Best team 59.9

Ok, so below average by 1.7% or about 4 completions.
BUT.... NO passer was "acceptable" by your standards.
That's nonsense.

Comparing eras isn't easy.

Stats in FB aren't as clear as stats in Baseball. There a player either hits or doesn't pretty much on his own. (Lineup matters, but he still has to hit) In FB many of the stats rely not only on the player doing what he should, but on other players doing their thing right too.

Steve B

[bravos4evr]

moving the goal posts logical fallacy.


Namath was below avg for completion % in his era you say? NOT A HOF player then.


approximate value is a good modern football stat btw and it lists him as an avg QB not good, and surely not a HOF'er, only Namath fanboys and old farts think differently and neither have an opinion worth listening too

[TUM301]

If there`s any one player more responsible for the NFL being what it is today, the most popular and profitable pro enterprise going, I`d like to know. Broadway Joe was exactly what the AFL needed and was" at the right place at the right time". Bama to New York for him, he and they basically lit the fuse and took an "air it out attitude", attitude being the key, and gave the public a different look. Stats are one thing, and they mean a lot when talking H O F, but influence and history have to be taken into account. Do I take Namath as my "go to" to win me one game, probably not. But there are very few moments in American sports lore that were more influential than the Jets/Colts S Bowl. Namath`s on and off the field approach at a time when media was very limited made him and the moment a HOF`er for me. Just my 2 cents.................