HOF Golden Era Results

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

With Namath, it's simple. Personality goes a long way.

Statistically he was not one of the top QBs of all time but it's more than personality with Namath. He legitimized the AFL when he signed the biggest contract in history with the Jets instead of going to the NFL. He engineered a huge Super Bowl upset that further legitimized the AFL. He was the first QB to throw for 4,000 yards in a season (14 games). He was voted first team All-AFL ahead of Len Dawson.

jeff

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by jefferyepayne

Statistically he was not one of the top QBs of all time but it's more than personality with Namath. He legitimized the AFL when he signed the biggest contract in history with the Jets instead of going to the NFL. He engineered a huge Super Bowl upset that further legitimized the AFL. He was the first QB to throw for 4,000 yards in a season (14 games). He was voted first team All-AFL ahead of Len Dawson.

jeff

I think the 4,000 yard thing is nice but doesn't make up for the fact that he had a losing record as a starter and threw more INT's than TD's. His completion percentage I believe is at or near the bottom of Hall of Fame QBs.

If Namath played in St. Louis at the time he would be a complete after thought. I would rate Plunkett and Brodie and possibly Gabriel as better contemporary passers.


Sorry I digress. I know this is a baseball forum and therefore given my above argument I am glad to see no one made it in. There should be NO golden era committee or Veterans committee or anything the like. If you weren't good enough to get in during eligibility the you are simply not good enough.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Passer rating can be misleading, but Joe is not even in the top 150 in that department (and it doesn't depend on longevity).

[bxb]

Fortunately, HOFs do not, nor should they, depend solely on statistics. I was a Buffalo Bills fan as a kid and saw many games against Joe Namath. I can tell you first hand he was one of the greatest QBs of all time.

[packs]

Broadway Joe seems like the Reggie Jackson of the football HOF.

[nolemmings]

If Namath played in St. Louis at the time he would be a complete after thought. I would rate Plunkett and Brodie and possibly Gabriel as better contemporary passers.

Jim Plunkett was barely a contemporary of Namath's, and threw a shotput--one of the ugliest balls I have ever seen (with apologies to Bobby Douglass). John Hadl would be a more apt comparison to Namath, given their attachment to the old AFL and its love for the long pass and flair for the big play.

I doubt Namath would ever have been an "afterhought" regardless of where he played,and I would suggest that had he quarterbacked the Chiefs or Raiders, he would have led those teams to even more success than they enjoyed as the dominant teams of that time. Note that Namath was voted/named the quarterback on the all-time AFL team, ahead of Dawson, Kemp, et al.

I was no fan of Joe Willie, especially as I lived and died with Johnny U's Colts. Still, I recall him being an incredible player to watch, and stats aside, the following tributes (per Wikipedia) are pretty high praise from those who would know:
"Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh stated that Namath was "the most beautiful, accurate, stylish passer with the quickest release [he'd] ever seen." Hall of Fame coach Don Shula stated that Namath was "one of the three smartest quarterbacks of all time."

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I was no fan of Joe Willie, especially as I lived and died with Johnny U's Colts. Still, I recall him being an incredible player to watch, and stats aside, the following tributes (per Wikipedia) are pretty high praise from those who would know:
"Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh stated that Namath was "the most beautiful, accurate, stylish passer with the quickest release [he'd] ever seen." Hall of Fame coach Don Shula stated that Namath was "one of the three smartest quarterbacks of all time."

I was a fan of Joe Willie, an avid Jets fan from 1969 - 1975......but, I have never forgiven them when they let John Riggins go (after he was their MVP in 1975).

Anyhow, having watched Joe Namath those years, and having gone to quite a few games....Todd's quote of Coach Bill Walsh describes Namath's play to the tee.
Joe was indeed quick on the release, precisely because The Jets had some great Receivers during Joe's tenure.....especially Don Maynard. These guys were real
professionals that could quickly get in the clear and had sure hands, which made Joe's task easier.





P.S. .... I never got Joe to sign my ticket stub. But, after reminiscing with Johnny Unitas regarding this great game (9/24/72), Johnny signed it on the back.


TED Z
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The argument that Namath is overrated.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...terbacks/6538/

[tedzan]

Did you personally ever see (on TV, films, or actually being at a Jets game) Joe Namath play ?

If not, then citing some pub's questionable opinion of Namath doesn't cut it in my book.


TED Z
.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by ksabet

There should be NO golden era committee or Veterans committee or anything the like. If you weren't good enough to get in during eligibility the you are simply not good enough.

Who wants to go visit the grave of Arky Vaughan and give him the bad news?

[timn1]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Who wants to go visit the grave of Arky Vaughan and give him the bad news?

+1, well put. I want Arky in there!

What is this mania for preserving the "standards" of the HOF? Sure, there are some clunkers in there (Hooper, Ferrell, the infamous Frisch-led infield of Kelly, Jackson, and Lindstrom), but for the most part the Veterans Committee has righted a lot of omissions that the sportswriters collectively committed.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by timn1

+1, well put. I want Arky in there!

What is this mania for preserving the "standards" of the HOF? Sure, there are some clunkers in there (Hooper, Ferrell, the infamous Frisch-led infield of Kelly, Jackson, and Lindstrom), but for the most part the Veterans Committee has righted a lot of omissions that the sportswriters collectively committed.

+2. If Arky's not in there, you need to kick out every SS not name Honus Wagner. I'm glad the current committee didn't elect anyone. I don't think those guys are HOFers, but looking at the back log on the ballot right now, I can see the need a few years down the road.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by timn1

Sure, there are some clunkers in there...Hooper...

It seems this will keep being thrown out there, and I'll keep defending Hooper as a legitimate and completely deserving HOFer. I'll copy an updated version what I wrote several times before:

A few points about Hooper:

- He was a lead-off man with more pop than most,
- His job was to score runs - he scored 1429 of them (#82 all time), averaging 100 per full season over his entire career,
- Ranked #106 all time in career base hits,
- Ranked #40 all time in triples, which means, in that era, both speed and power,
- Drew over 1000 walks, averaging 80 per full season, good for #71 all-time,
- Glove? Not even a question. One of the greatest ever. Key component of what many regard as the best outfield of all time,
- World Series? Unreal with both glove and bat. Won 4 World Series titles with Red Sox between 1912-1918. The key player who was a constant in all 4 Red Sox championship years. Hooper is the only HOFer to play in all 4 years of the Red Sox dynasty of the 1910s. And Speaker only played 2 of the 4. Can you imagine the uproar in New York if a team from that city won 4 World Series titles in 7 years and only sent one guy from those teams to the HOF? Unthinkable.
- First player ever to hit 2 home runs in a single WS game in 1915,
- Also stole 375 bases, good for #90 all-time,
- The first and longest part of his career was played in the dead ball era with Boston. He hit .272 over this period. He went to Chicago roughly when the lively ball came into play and after that - in the seasons forming the twilight of his career - he hit .302...pretty good evidence of the effect of the lively ball on the stats of some players.

So I strongly disagree with the widely-held idea that Hooper does not belong. To me he is an obvious HOFer.

Cheers,
Blair

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

It seems this will keep being thrown out there, and I'll keep defending Hooper as a legitimate and completely deserving HOFer. I'll copy an updated version what I wrote several times before:

A few points about Hooper:

- He was a lead-off man with more pop than most,
- His job was to score runs - he scored 1429 of them (#82 all time), averaging 100 per full season over his entire career,
- Ranked #106 all time in career base hits,
- Ranked #40 all time in triples, which means, in that era, both speed and power,
- Drew over 1000 walks, averaging 80 per full season, good for #71 all-time,
- Glove? Not even a question. One of the greatest ever. Key component of what many regard as the best outfield of all time,
- World Series? Unreal with both glove and bat. Won 4 World Series titles with Red Sox between 1912-1918. The key player who was a constant in all 4 Red Sox championship years. Hooper is the only HOFer to play in all 4 years of the Red Sox dynasty of the 1910s. And Speaker only played 2 of the 4. Can you imagine the uproar in New York if a team from that city won 4 World Series titles in 7 years and only sent one guy from those teams to the HOF? Unthinkable.
- First player ever to hit 2 home runs in a single WS game in 1915,
- Also stole 375 bases, good for #90 all-time,
- The first and longest part of his career was played in the dead ball era with Boston. He hit .272 over this period. He went to Chicago roughly when the lively ball came into play and after that - in the seasons forming the twilight of his career - he hit .302...pretty good evidence of the effect of the lively ball on the stats of some players.

So I strongly disagree with the widely-held idea that Hooper does not belong. To me he is an obvious HOFer.

Cheers,
Blair

I never though there was any real controversy over Hooper being in the Hall. He may not be a top tier or even a mid tier Hall Of Fame player, but he is deserving for his steady play and key contributions to one of the great early dynasties.

I would put him in before someone like Tony Lazzeri.

Tom C

[vintagehofrookies]

I'm still pissed Minnie didn't get in.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by vintagehofrookies

I'm still pissed Minnie didn't get in.

Me Too! He's very deserving.

[SteveMitchell]

Blair deserves kudos for his outstanding defense of Harry Hooper's record. As I paged through Deadball Stars of the American League and Deadball Stars of the National League I became increasingly impressed by the baseball ability of many who played during the T206 era, who contributed mightily to their teams and who, sadly, have been largely forgotten or overlooked due to the differences in strategy, the style of play and even the baseballs used.

Well done, Blair. What applies to Harry Hooper (in various ways) applies to a goodly number of other Deadball Era stars including Sherry Magee, Stuffy McInnis, Jake Daubert and others.

As others have said, Harry Hooper IS a Hall of Famer and deserves to be one - as does Jim Bunning.

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

It seems this will keep being thrown out there, and I'll keep defending Hooper as a legitimate and completely deserving HOFer. I'll copy an updated version what I wrote several times before:

A few points about Hooper:

- He was a lead-off man with more pop than most,
- His job was to score runs - he scored 1429 of them (#82 all time), averaging 100 per full season over his entire career,
- Ranked #106 all time in career base hits,
- Ranked #40 all time in triples, which means, in that era, both speed and power,
- Drew over 1000 walks, averaging 80 per full season, good for #71 all-time,
- Glove? Not even a question. One of the greatest ever. Key component of what many regard as the best outfield of all time,
- World Series? Unreal with both glove and bat. Won 4 World Series titles with Red Sox between 1912-1918. The key player who was a constant in all 4 Red Sox championship years. Hooper is the only HOFer to play in all 4 years of the Red Sox dynasty of the 1910s. And Speaker only played 2 of the 4. Can you imagine the uproar in New York if a team from that city won 4 World Series titles in 7 years and only sent one guy from those teams to the HOF? Unthinkable.
- First player ever to hit 2 home runs in a single WS game in 1915,
- Also stole 375 bases, good for #90 all-time,
- The first and longest part of his career was played in the dead ball era with Boston. He hit .272 over this period. He went to Chicago roughly when the lively ball came into play and after that - in the seasons forming the twilight of his career - he hit .302...pretty good evidence of the effect of the lively ball on the stats of some players.

So I strongly disagree with the widely-held idea that Hooper does not belong. To me he is an obvious HOFer.

Cheers,
Blair

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by SteveMitchell

Well done, Blair.

Thanks very much, Steve!

Cheers,
Blair