He got in more for being a cultural icon of the 60s, like Marilyn Monroe or JFK, and being the poster boy of the AFL in the fur coat and the panty hose, and calling the win as an 18-point underdog, also first to throw for 4000 yards in a season legitimized the AFL winning that Super Bowl, a lot of circumstances beyond stats.
The players in the Hall of Fame were stars who made a difference in games time after time for a decade or more. They were vetted by people who were thoroughly familiar with their careers. Someone who has been to a few games and has access to a computer doesn't get to second-guess the qualified voters. I suggest taking away their computers.
Which of these is Hall of Famer Joe Namath and which is not Hall of Famer John Handl from 1965-1974 (Namath's peak seasons)? One of these guys wins every single category, except for one game where his defense created FIVE turnovers to get him the win.
| Games Started | QB Record | Completion | Attempts | Cmp% | Yds | TDs | Int | Led League in Yards | Led League in TDs | Led League in INTs |
| 104 | 56-44-4 | 1565 | 3099 | 50.5% | 23,681 | 151 | 171 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 129 | 70-50-9 | 1819 | 3599 | 50.5% | 26,407 | 192 | 191 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Well it's his own fault for having a name so similar to Hand and Handle that my fingers forced the merger with his name.
Probably not. But as someone who grew up with Lynn Swann as my childhood idol, I will steal a line paraphrased from the great John Facenda. Lynn Swann is making plays when most of America is watching.
Not to mention that he didn't even make it on the first vote in the Veteran's Committee when he failed the prior year. Then he got in the next year before they disbanded the 13-member secret ballot committee.
Those "qualified voters" also failed to induct Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Henry Aaron and Willie Mays unanimously. So they can be wrong more than once, no?
"They" all voted overwhelming in favor of all your listed players on their first attempt. Cobb and Ruth got in on the very first HOF ballot ever. So the voters were forced to pick only 10 names from every single person that I played baseball before 1935.
Overwhelmingly is not the same as unanimously. Surely you know the difference in meaning.
But your argument makes no sense because you can't define an entire group's actions by the actions of a very small portion of the larger group of people. There are a few Americans that are cannibals, you wouldn't "they" (referring to Americans) are cannibals. It's not my fault that you choose to make a dumb point comparing the actions of less than 5% of voters with the actions of 95% of them in another situation.
No, which is why it took Maz a longer time to get in, but he got in , certainly you can appreciate that a top defensive middle infielder, at the top of their league for a decade is an elite class of athlete.
There are a lot of middle infielders that are more deserving than Maz that aren’t in the HOF: Lou Whitaker, Omar Vizquel, Jeff Kent, Bobby Grich, Nomar Garciaparra, etc…
Well, I am not going to convince you that winning 8 GG at SS or 2nd (He would have won 9 but they did not give one for each league in until 1958) is quite an athletic accomplishment. I am sure that I do not have to tell you that in Maz's day there were no safety rules, breaking up the double play with force was accepted. ( I think he played in every game for five of those gold glove seasons) But the proof is in the pudding, he is in, his .260 /138/850's were enough in the context of his day.
Whitaker for sure, Grich ah not sure could be a tie, less glove for sure, more HR's, same average, same career rbi's .....???
How many thousands of players have played MLB? To be frank, 965 doesn't sound that bad to me. Now I haven't closely studied the stats so I don't know how great he was defensively purely from an objective numbers perspective. But there are 274 former players in the HOF. A 965th best offensive WAR combined with a truly elite glove is probably worthy of the HOF.
The pudding is sour. He is in because of a 15-person veterans committee voting with secret ballots, whose chairman was Maz's General Manager. On top of that, Ted Williams who voted against Maz the previous year, had to miss the meeting because he was having heart surgery. So instead of needing the usual 12 votes to get in, he only needed 11 votes to reach the necessary 75% of participants (which is how many he got the previous year).
So Hadl had numbers, he didn't win the AFL's 1st Super Bowl, he didn't predict he was winning as an 18 point underdog, he didn't wear a fur coat and panty hose and grow a Fu Manch mustache, didn't date movie stars, he wasn't the iconic character Namath was, Namath made the AFL and it was more than his play or stats
Agreed. Hadl was probably a better QB. But it's called the Hall Of FAME. Namath was famous, Hadl was not.
Namath was a very good player, won a championship, but he made the HofF from being a movie star-like character, he was also like a counter culture 60s type, he was like the guy your parents didn't like, unlike Unitas with the crew cut and black high tops, he had the long hair and white shoes, he drew the young crowd, to look at stats has nothing to do with why he's in the Hall
Oh no, I completely agree that Namath belongs in the Hall of Fame for those very reasons. He was truly an iconic player.
Agreed, but he didn't lack talent either, he was the 1st guy to throw for 4000 yards for one thing, he could throw a football
Give us an example of someone who was not famous among fans during their playing days, but later had fame conferred upon them by their induction into a hall of fame.
Yes, Bill Mazeroski - He hid behind his 8 gold gloves, and 7 all-star games, and since there were only seven other teams in the league at the time most followers of baseball, the National league followers in particular, could not remember who played 2nd base for the Pirates and won 8 gold gloves and was selected as an all-star 7 times. Then against the New York Yankees in the World Series game 7, he hits a walk-off home run very quietly, so he spent most of his baseball life in obscurity due to only having 8 Gold Gloves, 7 all-star games, and the most famous hit of the decade, fans could not recall his name, in fact a lot of people in NYC by 1962 were saying "some guy name Smith hit that homer".....very not famous....
Lloyd Waner has a lifetime BA of .316 when hitting .300 meant something. Consider Clemente's lifetime BA is .317. Four times Waner had more than 200 hits in a season. I'm sure the list of those players that had more than 200 hits in a season four times or more is a short and impressive one. Eleven seasons Waner hit .300 or better.
You talking about Elijah Fields? He played as a freshman then either flunked out or got thrown out of school. Can't remember the circumstances.
In what way? Does it have to be the most fantastical athleticism? Or what about if you're steady and pile up huge numbers over a long time and win championships, but aren't spectacular?
