Worst player in any Hall of Fame

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

This is not necessarily the least deserving as there is a subtle difference. I'm looking for guys who just weren't all that good at their sport.

I'm torn between Rabbit Maranville and Joe Namath, honorable mention to Ray Schalk and Phil Rizzuto

[Snapolit1]

Joe Namath won the biggest game in his sport in a legendary upset. Has to count for a lot. Not arguing he deserved the Hall, but far from the least deserving candidate I can imagine.

[The-Cardfather]

I know that I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but my choice is........

Cal Ripken, Jr.

A very good player who was fortunate enough (and healthy enough) not to ever take or need a day off. But NOT a Hall-of-Fame player, IMHO.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Joe Namath won the biggest game in his sport in a legendary upset. Has to count for a lot. Not arguing he deserved the Hall, but far from the least deserving candidate I can imagine.

Namath had a fairly pedestrian game. Matt Snell and the Jets D won that game.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by The Cardfather

I know that I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but my choice is........

Cal Ripken, Jr.

A very good player who was fortunate enough (and healthy enough) not to ever take or need a day off. But NOT a Hall-of-Fame player, IMHO.

Consider this flack given LOL. Contrarian choice. Ripken is a no brainer, streak or no streak. 2 MVP Awards, 8 Silver Sluggers for his position, reliably fielded his position no matter what anybody says about his range, though he seems to be ranked near the top of his position in nearly every defensive metric on Baseball Reference for good portions of his career.

[Econteachert205]

Bill Bradley NBA, only in because of New York.

[Snapolit1]

I would clearly support the idea that Cal would win my award for most hysterically over hyped player of my lifetime who was nowhere near the great player than many made him out to be. I also though his pursuit of the streak showed him to be a self obsessed boob who egotistically put his personal stuff ahead of everything else. (Sure this hasn't been debated before. . . .) Had a few truly excellent years but many more seasons where he hit around .250.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I would clearly support the idea that Cal would win my award for most hysterically over hyped player of my lifetime who was nowhere near the great player than many made him out to be. I also though his pursuit of the streak showed him to be a self obsessed boob who egotistically put his personal stuff ahead of everything else. (Sure this hasn't been debated before. . . .) Had a few truly excellent years but many more seasons where he hit around .250.

Put me in coach !! (Dad for a little bit wasn't it)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Consider this flack given LOL. Contrarian choice. Ripken is a no brainer, streak or no streak. 2 MVP Awards, 8 Silver Sluggers for his position, reliably fielded his position no matter what anybody says about his range, though he seems to be ranked near the top of his position in nearly every defensive metric on Baseball Reference for good portions of his career.

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

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by The Cardfather

I know that I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but my choice is........

Cal Ripken, Jr.

A very good player who was fortunate enough (and healthy enough) not to ever take or need a day off. But NOT a Hall-of-Fame player, IMHO.

What? Ripken is in the top 25 all-time for WAR; the only two shortstops ahead of him are Honus Wagner and Alex Rodriguez, who obviously was not a shortstop his entire career and was a steroid guy.

Even if you are not a new-age stats guy, 3,184 hits and 430 home runs are not HoF numbers? Have you looked at Ray Schalk's career numbers?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

What? Ripken is in the top 25 all-time for WAR; the only two shortstops ahead of him are Honus Wagner and Alex Rodriguez, who obviously was not a shortstop his entire career and was a steroid guy.

Even if you are not a new-age stats guy, 3,184 hits and 430 home runs are not HoF numbers? Have you looked at Ray Schalk's career numbers?

Agreed. Sure Ripken got overhyped because of the streak, but independent of that he was an easy first ballot HOFer, one of the very few greatest shortstops ever.

My choice would be Lloyd Waner -- negative WAR if I recall.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My choice would be Lloyd Waner -- negative WAR if I recall.

First name that popped into my mind. Worst stats in the hall.

As far as football Aikman makes Namath look like comparing Ruth to Rick Ferrell. No reason he is there other than the lucky Qb for that team during the Dallas run. Zero all-pros, 5 of 12 seasons below .500 and an almost 50/50 touchdown to INT rate. God-awful for the busts in that room.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by The Cardfather

I know that I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but my choice is........

Cal Ripken, Jr.

A very good player who was fortunate enough (and healthy enough) not to ever take or need a day off. But NOT a Hall-of-Fame player, IMHO.

Well I don't know if you like modern stats but his WAR is quite impressive, and regardless of whether or not he belongs he's FAR from the worst player in the Hall.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Joe Namath won the biggest game in his sport in a legendary upset. Has to count for a lot. Not arguing he deserved the Hall, but far from the least deserving candidate I can imagine.

I specifically noted the difference between worst and least deserving. I stick to my guns that he is the worst player in the NFL HOF.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Bill Bradley NBA, only in because of New York.

Ah, but the Basketball HOF is just that, the BASKETBALL HOF, not the NBA HOF. So his college and Olympic exploits are really what got him in. To me the Basketball HOF is hard to even quantify because of its weird structure.

[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 JustinD

First name that popped into my mind. Worst stats in the hall.

As far as football Aikman makes Namath look like comparing Ruth to Rick Ferrell. No reason he is there other than the lucky Qb for that team during the Dallas run. Zero all-pros, 5 of 12 seasons below .500 and an almost 50/50 touchdown to INT rate. God-awful for the busts in that room.

Namath 173 TD's and 220 INT's

Aikman 165 TD's 141 INT's

[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.

-

[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

[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.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Have no clue how guys like Namath and Ripken are even being mentioned... Overrated? Sure but definitely HOF caliber.

How are people not talking about Roger Bresnahan?

[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!"

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by 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.

He was elected as a Pioneer, not as a player.

[packs]

I always thought Bobby Cox was another poor choice as a manager. The guy managed forever, sure, but he only won 1 World Series.

[bn2cardz]

I can't speak to any other HOF as I don't follow other sports. As far as baseball I have always thought Lloyd Waner. Yet Rick Ferrell apparently may have been elected by mistake and his vote caused some controversy at the time according to Jack O'Connell, the secretary-treasurer of the Baseball Writers Association of America:

There were a couple of people that the Veterans Committee put in that… and I don’t want to pick on this guy, because he’s a wonderful person, but the election of Rick Ferrell—who wasn’t even the best player in his family—really irritated people. The Veterans Committee was putting people in left and right, and then Rick Ferrell, who was only on our ballot for three years and got three total votes, got in. He was a popular guy, and he was the farm director for the Tigers for many, many years, and the story I heard was that Jim Campbell had called a few of the Veterans Committee members and said, “Look, just don’t let him get shut out. Throw him a vote.” Well, the guy ended up getting nine votes, so he got elected.

- from http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=12754

[dgo71]

Relevant article I stumbled across:

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/list...r1xw44ezkh7u7e

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

He was elected as a Pioneer, not as a player.

Doesn't really change the fact that he's not deserving.

[packs]

I don't know about that. If he really did invent the curveball that innovation is still in practice today.

[bbcard1]

I've actually had an interesting exercise sorting my APBA all time greats set into two decade teams 1900-1920, 1920-1940, 1940-1960 and 1960-1980. It works amazingly well...i've only found a couple of folks who straddled those lines...certain Mays and Aaron did, but with DiMaggio, Mantle, Snider, Musial and Williams already in the 1940-1960 out pasture, moving them to the 1960s was easy. Greenberg was a hard call, but with Foxx and Gehrig (and Sister as a reserve option) already at first in the 1920-40 team, i moved him to the 1940-1960 team.

I think there are several pre1900 and deadball players who got the benefit of the doubt. Elmer Flick and Harry Hooper were pretty normal in the context of their times. Lloyd Warner reported was elected after the veterans committee errantly received the statistics of his brother Paul. Maranville, Bancroft, and a whole slew of 1920-1940 pitchers can have a compelling case. Odd as it sounds, if anything the 1960s seem very underrepresented. Allen, Oliva and Freehan are better than a lot of guys in the hall.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I've actually had an interesting exercise sorting my APBA all time greats set into two decade teams 1900-1920, 1920-1940, 1940-1960 and 1960-1980. It works amazingly well...i've only found a couple of folks who straddled those lines...certain Mays and Aaron did, but with DiMaggio, Mantle, Snider, Musial and Williams already in the 1940-1960 out pasture, moving them to the 1960s was easy. Greenberg was a hard call, but with Foxx and Gehrig (and Sister as a reserve option) already at first in the 1920-40 team, i moved him to the 1940-1960 team.

I think there are several pre1900 and deadball players who got the benefit of the doubt. Elmer Flick and Harry Hooper were pretty normal in the context of their times. Lloyd Warner reported was elected after the veterans committee errantly received the statistics of his brother Paul. Maranville, Bancroft, and a whole slew of 1920-1940 pitchers can have a compelling case. Odd as it sounds, if anything the 1960s seem very underrepresented. Allen, Oliva and Freehan are better than a lot of guys in the hall.

I disagree with the description of Elmer Flick as "pretty normal". His career numbers are fairly low because his career was shortened by illness but when healthy he was one of the very best hitters in baseball.

[Davino]

I say Bill Mazeroski, Phil Rizzuto, Rollie Fingers, and Bruce Sutter are not worthy, but the worst player(modern-ish) is:


Hoyt Wilhelm

[packs]

Oh come on, Hoyt was the prototype for the modern relief pitcher. He even led the league in ERA without even making a start as a 29 year old rookie. A 2.52 ERA over 2,200 innings. Goose Gossage's ERA is a half run higher after pitching 400 less innings and he's always talking about how great he was.

[bravos4evr]

Worst in ANY HOF is pretty tough to figure out, but IMO, the worst "big name" player in any HOF is Joe Namath.

115 career approximate value puts him in the neighborhood of guys like Cutler, Phil Sims and Bartkowski.

50.1% career completion percentage is woeful

173 TD's and 220 INT's isn't much better , in fact his TD passes only exceeded interceptions 3 seasons...

He's a pretty league avg type of QB who got in on hype, style and "the guarantee"

[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.

[packs]

Touche. Still don't think Reggie is though.

[mikemb]

For any player in any hall of fame, I'm sure there are some or many who think they do not belong, for one reason or another.

I really enjoyed watching Joe Namath play. To me, he made the AFL. He did what he had to do to win. Statistics can be interpreted any way you want by any number of people.

Mike