Light-thinking fans who disrespect the IBHOF should find another sport!

[QueensburyRules]

Lol, no. The IBHOF is a labor of love. The money to support it comes from generous donations from fans who appreciate a tough sport and beleive that honoring the toughest athletes is the right and decent thing to do.
There is no league in this sport.

- - Exactly the reason there's no honesty in boxing...thanks for the clarification...

[DeeMoney]

Please name the names. Don't talk around the subject. Lets go deep since you are a baseball head/ nfl football head.

First off, as I wrote earlier, there are always going to be those at the bottom of any HOF who demark what should be the lowest standard to get in. That doesn't mean they shouldnt be in. The ones who shouldnt be in are those whose entry drops the bar significantly, or who are clearly lower performing than others who should get in. That doesnt mean they are bad, and I am sure in response you will sight positive statistics in their honor. Rather, that those stats dont equate to what a hofer should be based on previously established merits.
Baseball is easy- many of the Frankie Frisch pals inductees who have been due to his connection are the most obvious: included amongst this are Jesse Haines, Chick Haffey, Jim Bottomley, High Pockets Kelly. Similarly Harold Baines, made it in due to being LaRussa's buddy. This isnt to say Baines want a good player, rather that he fits into the "Hall of Very Good" category- he was a good ball player for a fair amount of years, but he was below the bar that had been established for more modern players (excluding those who were noted for being in and shouldnt have been). Additionally, there were better players who shouldve got in instead of him.

There are also a number who were noted for being very good defensive players and made it in on that mark, though really their defense, though solid, did not constitute a HOF amount of production on their part- Schalk, Mazerowski, Rizzuto. The last two making it in more on being Famous than what they did in regards to overall production (and by production I mean offensively and defensively).

If you feel that it being a hall of fame means it to be more of a hall of famous- and that notable players should make it in due to that- then this becomes an apples to oranges discussion. Maz was a very good defensive second baseman, who hit a ws game 7 walk off. That makes him famous, but his overall career production was not quite that of a hofer. There are a few other pitchers too who fall into this category.

For football, the issue seems to be more along these lines for HOFerd who shouldnt make it. You have a good player who was part of a winning team or position group and they gain famousness for it. And yes, while winning is the ultimate goal, these players often are winning due to being part of a great team. Think of it like this, I can beat Usain Bolt in a 100m dash, if I was given a 70m head start. Having a great team around you is that head start. You still get to claim winning at the end, you just didnt produce as much to create the win as others had to produce on their end. Players like **** Lebeau (who could make it as a DC but shouldnt be in as a player), Russ Grimm, and possibly Lynn Swann fit this model. Yes, Swann had HOF talent, but just didnt do much production wise.

In this light, Nammath shouldnt be in the HOF, he had a few great seasons, but a mix of injuries and other factors really limitted his production. He just didnt have a HOF career- though HOF highlights and famousness.

[Willow The Wisp]

- - Exactly the reason there's no honesty in boxing...thanks for the clarification...

I have no idea what that means.

[MalevolentBite]

HOM
Hall Of Mediocrity
Doing something ONE TIME should not qualify.
Led in INTs 4x
TDs, once
Led team to 10+ win seasons twice
3 playoff games.....
Couldn't top .500 carrer win %
And Joe had a miserable SB game.
Worst SB MVP winner...

As for Mr Holy Cow, being ok for PART your job should not qualify. Hitting is also his job.
Neither belong unless a person is a super fan.

Those accolades are below mid.
NYY could have won those titles without Mr Holy Cow
EASILY
Let's take a gander at his MVP season.....
200 hits exactly
.324 BA
125 Runs
NONE were the most
LED IN PA's, doe

Players on the NYY who had better years than Phil in 1950 -
Joe D and Yogi by far

You should check out the league leaders of 1950......

Boxers are not above scrutiny
Not every boxer should get in.
Not sure why fans give them special treatment

You're comparing apples to oranges Joe Namath played in a way harder game then Today's QBs. Those QBs didn't last long. They didn't have long career back in those days. Defense got away with very hard hits and certain rules that favor passing would had helped Joe. When you rate someone's career you have to rate him based on his career. In those Days he was one of the best not one of the best ever thats two different things. Gatti and Vinny was never elite ever at any point of their career.

Baseball is a slow pace team sport. I wasn't alive in 1950. I highly doubt you watched a prime phil. Once again. Phil was not a first ballot Hall of famer. He had to wait. Gatti and Vinny didn't have to wait. Now find me a person who wasn't on roids who isn't in the hall of fame with better stats then Phill in his POSITION.

[MalevolentBite]

First off, as I wrote earlier, there are always going to be those at the bottom of any HOF who demark what should be the lowest standard to get in. That doesn't mean they shouldnt be in. The ones who shouldnt be in are those whose entry drops the bar significantly, or who are clearly lower performing than others who should get in. That doesnt mean they are bad, and I am sure in response you will sight positive statistics in their honor. Rather, that those stats dont equate to what a hofer should be based on previously established merits.
Baseball is easy- many of the Frankie Frisch pals inductees who have been due to his connection are the most obvious: included amongst this are Jesse Haines, Chick Haffey, Jim Bottomley, High Pockets Kelly. Similarly Harold Baines, made it in due to being LaRussa's buddy. This isnt to say Baines want a good player, rather that he fits into the "Hall of Very Good" category- he was a good ball player for a fair amount of years, but he was below the bar that had been established for more modern players (excluding those who were noted for being in and shouldnt have been). Additionally, there were better players who shouldve got in instead of him.

There are also a number who were noted for being very good defensive players and made it in on that mark, though really their defense, though solid, did not constitute a HOF amount of production on their part- Schalk, Mazerowski, Rizzuto. The last two making it in more on being Famous than what they did in regards to overall production (and by production I mean offensively and defensively).

If you feel that it being a hall of fame means it to be more of a hall of famous- and that notable players should make it in due to that- then this becomes an apples to oranges discussion. Maz was a very good defensive second baseman, who hit a ws game 7 walk off. That makes him famous, but his overall career production was not quite that of a hofer. There are a few other pitchers too who fall into this category.

For football, the issue seems to be more along these lines for HOFerd who shouldnt make it. You have a good player who was part of a winning team or position group and they gain famousness for it. And yes, while winning is the ultimate goal, these players often are winning due to being part of a great team. Think of it like this, I can beat Usain Bolt in a 100m dash, if I was given a 70m head start. Having a great team around you is that head start. You still get to claim winning at the end, you just didnt produce as much to create the win as others had to produce on their end. Players like **** Lebeau (who could make it as a DC but shouldnt be in as a player), Russ Grimm, and possibly Lynn Swann fit this model. Yes, Swann had HOF talent, but just didnt do much production wise.

In this light, Nammath shouldnt be in the HOF, he had a few great seasons, but a mix of injuries and other factors really limitted his production. He just didnt have a HOF career- though HOF highlights and famousness.

Once again. Joe Namath was found of the first "elite " quarterbacks in the NFL the first superbowl was in 1967ish. He won superbowl III up until that point Joe Namath won a AFL Championship, MVP, Rookie of the Year and championship MVP all within 2-3 years. Quarterbacks in the 1960-1970s didn't have a long career. Quarterbacks were not protected and it was a running league so Quarterbacks didn't have crazy stats like today and defense played rough ! You have to rate Joe on his career for his time period in the 1966-1970s for his time. He was one of the best in his generation. Thats hall of fame. Gatti nor Vinny were the best in their generation. This is a slap in a face come on now. You both dont watch football. What's next Megatron isnt going to hall of fame Because he retired early ? What about Walter Payton? NFL hall of fame isnt Just stats its about how dominant you were in your prime. Then stats and championships. Definitely for your postion.

[TheProudLunatic]

You're comparing apples to oranges Joe Namath played in a way harder game then Today's QBs. Those QBs didn't last long. They didn't have long career back in those days. Defense got away with very hard hits and certain rules that favor passing would had helped Joe. When you rate someone's career you have to rate him based on his career. In those Days he was one of the best not one of the best ever thats two different things. Gatti and Vinny was never elite ever at any point of their career.

Baseball is a slow pace team sport. I wasn't alive in 1950. I highly doubt you watched a prime phil. Once again. Phil was not a first ballot Hall of famer. He had to wait. Gatti and Vinny didn't have to wait. Now find me a person who wasn't on roids who isn't in the hall of fame with better stats then Phill in his POSITION.

May be TL/WR .....

*1) "Joe Namath's ranking among his contemporaries is complex, as his statistical output isn't as impressive as some other Hall of Fame quarterbacks. While he led the AFL in passing yards in 1967 and 1972, his career completion percentage was low (50.1%), and he threw more interceptions than touchdowns. Some football analysts argue that his impact on the game and his leadership during Super Bowl III, where he famously guaranteed a victory for the Jets, elevate his standing despite his statistical shortcomings. Others on platforms like Quora consider him overrated, pointing to his low completion percentage, high interception rate, and overall win percentage."

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Statistical Comparison:
  Joe Namath's statistical profile, particularly his completion percentage and interception rate, is not as strong as many other Hall of Fame quarterbacks. He finished his career with a 50.1% completion rate and 220 interceptions compared to 173 touchdowns.
• Impact and Legacy:
  Despite the statistical concerns, Namath is widely remembered for his swagger, charisma, and the impact he had on the New York Jets and the AFL. His "guarantee" before Super Bowl III and subsequent victory cemented his place in football history.
• Context of the Era:
  It's important to consider the context of the era in which Namath played. The game was different, with a greater emphasis on the running game and less focus on passing statistics. Some argue that his Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt (ANYA) was actually above average for his time.
• Subjectivity of Rankings:
  Ultimately, quarterback rankings are subjective and depend on the criteria used. Some fans and analysts value Namath's leadership and big-game performances while others prioritize statistical achievements.

Bullshlt swagger and playing in NY got him in.
Plenty of QBs during his time had long careers. He is the prototypical 1 hit wonder.
Yes. You are 100000% correct. a player should be based on his CAREER, not a season or 2 !
Joe was never one of the best. He had 2 decent seasons.

*2) Yep. Baseball is a battle of attrition for the eyes. I wasn't born either to watch "prime" Phil play (sarcastical aw shucks )

"Comparing Phil Rizzuto to other Hall of Fame shortstops reveals a player with a unique place in baseball history, recognized for his defensive prowess and offensive contribution, particularly his bunting and stolen base abilities. However, he is not typically ranked among the very top tier of shortstops who are considered the best all-around players at the position."

Rizzuto's Strengths:

• Exceptional Defense: Rizzuto was renowned for fielding skills, leading the American League in double plays three times, putouts twice, and assists once. He had a career fielding percentage of .968 at shortstop. Teammate Joe DiMaggio praised Rizzuto's defensive contributions. Casey Stengel called him "the greatest shortstop [he had] ever seen in [his] entire baseball career".
• Offensive Contributions: Rizzuto was a skilled bunter, leading the league in sacrifice bunts for four years. He was also a five-time All-Star and the 1950 AL MVP (at least a dozen players had a better statistical season than Phil)

Comparison to Other Hall of Fame Shortstops:

• Honus Wagner: Considered by many to be the greatest shortstop, excelling in both hitting and defense with a career .328 batting average and eight NL batting titles.
• Cal Ripken Jr.: Known for his consecutive games streak and power at shortstop, hitting over 300 home runs.
• Derek Jeter: A modern era legend who ranks high in many offensive categories for shortstops, including hits, doubles, and runs. He was also known for his clutch hitting and leadership.
• Ozzie Smith: Renowned as arguably the best defensive shortstop ever, with 13 Gold Glove Awards.

Rizzuto's Hall of Fame Case:
While Rizzuto's career OPS+ of 93 (100 being league average) suggests that he may not be a Hall of Fame caliber player based solely on hitting, his induction is supported by his defensive excellence, his impact on the Yankees' success, including seven World Series titles, and his overall contributions to the game. His election by the Veterans Committee in 1994 indicates recognition for these broader contributions.
Conclusion:
Phil Rizzuto was a highly skilled shortstop who played a pivotal role in the success of the New York Yankees dynasty of the 1940s and 50s. While his offensive numbers may not rank as high as some other Hall of Fame shortstops, his exceptional defense, five All-Star selections, AL MVP award, and World Series championships firmly establish him as a Hall of Famer. However, when compared to the all-around greatness of players like Honus Wagner and Cal Ripken Jr., or the offensive dominance of Derek Jeter, Rizzuto falls into the next tier of Hall of Fame shortstops, valued primarily for his contributions on defense and for his winning pedigree

Phil would have been a benchwarmer on any other team and probably wouldn't make it in todays game.


*compliments of Google search

[TheProudLunatic]

Gatti and Vinny didn't have to wait.

Gatti....his battles with C level opposition would not have gotten him in. His dying got him in.
Paz.....his enhanced comeback story got him in.
Not sure who has the weaker resume of the 2.......
Neither should be in.

[DeeMoney]

Once again. Joe Namath was found of the first "elite " quarterbacks in the NFL the first superbowl was in 1967ish. He won superbowl III up until that point Joe Namath won a AFL Championship, MVP, Rookie of the Year and championship MVP all within 2-3 years. Quarterbacks in the 1960-1970s didn't have a long career. Quarterbacks were not protected and it was a running league so Quarterbacks didn't have crazy stats like today and defense played rough ! You have to rate Joe on his career for his time period in the 1966-1970s for his time. He was one of the best in his generation. Thats hall of fame. Gatti nor Vinny were the best in their generation. This is a slap in a face come on now. You both dont watch football. What's next Megatron isnt going to hall of fame Because he retired early ? What about Walter Payton? NFL hall of fame isnt Just stats its about how dominant you were in your prime. Then stats and championships. Definitely for your postion.

First off, lets stow the whole, "you both don't watch football" insult. I have made a fairly decent amount of money working in football, including directly training D1 and NFL players, along the way I have had the pleasure of working with a number of the HOFers in the sport. So lets just let the arguments stand for themselves, instead of trying to insult general knowledge.

Secondly, nobody is trying to compare stat for stat Namath to more modern QBs, I'm sure we all have a solid understanding of different eras of play and can differentiate between Pre Blount Rule and post Blount rule data, as well as the league differences of the NFL and AFL (pre merger). All my comparisons are era based, and take league factors into play.

Your Calvin Johnson reference is close to being apt, though I think Sayers would have been moreso, as Megatron had a consistent higher peak and didn't have as many games played outside of his prime (in fact Megatron never really had a post prime career). Namath did though, and thats the point I am making. Yes, he was a stud for a time, though not as consistently a long term stretch as Johnson, but more than half of his career came after he started getting hurt, and he essentially was no longer the QB talent he started off as.

Now lets delve more deeply into those years, so you can better see what I am saying:

Rookie season of '65, okay start, didn't produce as one of the top 5 qbs in the league (by which I mean both AFL and NFL combined, and adjust for different styles of play) at this time. Started little more than half the games.

Second year, full time starter, threw for a bunch of yards, but led the league in INTs, mind you thats relative to the rest of the league, so no need to compare to modern QBs. Still led the league in INTs and a sub par INT%. Hovering around top 5 QB in the league at the time, good but not great season (high counting stats on a team that threw a ton)

Year three, top five type season. Team still throws a ton, so high counting stats, but he is emerging as a stud.
Year four, little regression in what he contributes, but team won SB, so all good, another very good season
Year five, Good season, slight reduction in production, but for his first time he throws more TDs than picks most top QBs are doing that though.

Then, BAM, knees kick in, and he's not really a top QB anymore. He'll have one more Pro Bowl caliber season. Thats it, 2 very good, but not great, seasons and three other good seasons. He was a great talent, but injuries prevented him from really completing his HOF career as it should have been. Thats different than Calvin Johnson who had 2 legendary seasons and 5 other good to very good seasons, and a couple other solid ones. Or to cross sports Koufax who had four legendary seasons and two other very good seasons.

Namath's best seasons still saw him throw more INTs than TDs (not something that yearly top QBs consistently did back then). He never really had a 2-3 year stretch of legendary greatness (peaks like Sayers, Koufax, or Johnson), nor was he very good for a long time. He couldve been, but injuries prevented that.

[MalevolentBite]

May be TL/WR .....

*1) "Joe Namath's ranking among his contemporaries is complex, as his statistical output isn't as impressive as some other Hall of Fame quarterbacks. While he led the AFL in passing yards in 1967 and 1972, his career completion percentage was low (50.1%), and he threw more interceptions than touchdowns. Some football analysts argue that his impact on the game and his leadership during Super Bowl III, where he famously guaranteed a victory for the Jets, elevate his standing despite his statistical shortcomings. Others on platforms like Quora consider him overrated, pointing to his low completion percentage, high interception rate, and overall win percentage."

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Statistical Comparison:
  Joe Namath's statistical profile, particularly his completion percentage and interception rate, is not as strong as many other Hall of Fame quarterbacks. He finished his career with a 50.1% completion rate and 220 interceptions compared to 173 touchdowns.
• Impact and Legacy:
  Despite the statistical concerns, Namath is widely remembered for his swagger, charisma, and the impact he had on the New York Jets and the AFL. His "guarantee" before Super Bowl III and subsequent victory cemented his place in football history.
• Context of the Era:
  It's important to consider the context of the era in which Namath played. The game was different, with a greater emphasis on the running game and less focus on passing statistics. Some argue that his Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt (ANYA) was actually above average for his time.
• Subjectivity of Rankings:
  Ultimately, quarterback rankings are subjective and depend on the criteria used. Some fans and analysts value Namath's leadership and big-game performances while others prioritize statistical achievements.

Bullshlt swagger and playing in NY got him in.
Plenty of QBs during his time had long careers. He is the prototypical 1 hit wonder.
Yes. You are 100000% correct. a player should be based on his CAREER, not a season or 2 !
Joe was never one of the best. He had 2 decent seasons.

*2) Yep. Baseball is a battle of attrition for the eyes. I wasn't born either to watch "prime" Phil play (sarcastical aw shucks )

"Comparing Phil Rizzuto to other Hall of Fame shortstops reveals a player with a unique place in baseball history, recognized for his defensive prowess and offensive contribution, particularly his bunting and stolen base abilities. However, he is not typically ranked among the very top tier of shortstops who are considered the best all-around players at the position."

Rizzuto's Strengths:

• Exceptional Defense: Rizzuto was renowned for fielding skills, leading the American League in double plays three times, putouts twice, and assists once. He had a career fielding percentage of .968 at shortstop. Teammate Joe DiMaggio praised Rizzuto's defensive contributions. Casey Stengel called him "the greatest shortstop [he had] ever seen in [his] entire baseball career".
• Offensive Contributions: Rizzuto was a skilled bunter, leading the league in sacrifice bunts for four years. He was also a five-time All-Star and the 1950 AL MVP (at least a dozen players had a better statistical season than Phil)

Comparison to Other Hall of Fame Shortstops:

• Honus Wagner: Considered by many to be the greatest shortstop, excelling in both hitting and defense with a career .328 batting average and eight NL batting titles.
• Cal Ripken Jr.: Known for his consecutive games streak and power at shortstop, hitting over 300 home runs.
• Derek Jeter: A modern era legend who ranks high in many offensive categories for shortstops, including hits, doubles, and runs. He was also known for his clutch hitting and leadership.
• Ozzie Smith: Renowned as arguably the best defensive shortstop ever, with 13 Gold Glove Awards.

Rizzuto's Hall of Fame Case:
While Rizzuto's career OPS+ of 93 (100 being league average) suggests that he may not be a Hall of Fame caliber player based solely on hitting, his induction is supported by his defensive excellence, his impact on the Yankees' success, including seven World Series titles, and his overall contributions to the game. His election by the Veterans Committee in 1994 indicates recognition for these broader contributions.
Conclusion:
Phil Rizzuto was a highly skilled shortstop who played a pivotal role in the success of the New York Yankees dynasty of the 1940s and 50s. While his offensive numbers may not rank as high as some other Hall of Fame shortstops, his exceptional defense, five All-Star selections, AL MVP award, and World Series championships firmly establish him as a Hall of Famer. However, when compared to the all-around greatness of players like Honus Wagner and Cal Ripken Jr., or the offensive dominance of Derek Jeter, Rizzuto falls into the next tier of Hall of Fame shortstops, valued primarily for his contributions on defense and for his winning pedigree

Phil would have been a benchwarmer on any other team and probably wouldn't make it in todays game.


*compliments of Google search

I grew up a yankees fan. Jeter was my favorite. Also Cal Ripken Jr is one of the best ever period.

Context of the Era: It's important to consider the context of the era in which Namath played. The game was different, with a greater emphasis on the running game and less focus on passing statistics. Some argue that his Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt (ANYA) was actually above average for his time.

I was telling this to another poster. It was a defense and running league in those days. Its basically two different games. Pre 90s NFL and Post 00s football. Its night and day. Even the 80s It was different.

I agree with everything you found on Google.

[MalevolentBite]

First off, lets stow the whole, "you both don't watch football" insult. I have made a fairly decent amount of money working in football, including directly training D1 and NFL players, along the way I have had the pleasure of working with a number of the HOFers in the sport. So lets just let the arguments stand for themselves, instead of trying to insult general knowledge.

Secondly, nobody is trying to compare stat for stat Namath to more modern QBs, I'm sure we all have a solid understanding of different eras of play and can differentiate between Pre Blount Rule and post Blount rule data, as well as the league differences of the NFL and AFL (pre merger). All my comparisons are era based, and take league factors into play.

Your Calvin Johnson reference is close to being apt, though I think Sayers would have been moreso, as Megatron had a consistent higher peak and didn't have as many games played outside of his prime (in fact Megatron never really had a post prime career). Namath did though, and thats the point I am making. Yes, he was a stud for a time, though not as consistently a long term stretch as Johnson, but more than half of his career came after he started getting hurt, and he essentially was no longer the QB talent he started off as.

Now lets delve more deeply into those years, so you can better see what I am saying:

Rookie season of '65, okay start, didn't produce as one of the top 5 qbs in the league (by which I mean both AFL and NFL combined, and adjust for different styles of play) at this time. Started little more than half the games.

Second year, full time starter, threw for a bunch of yards, but led the league in INTs, mind you thats relative to the rest of the league, so no need to compare to modern QBs. Still led the league in INTs and a sub par INT%. Hovering around top 5 QB in the league at the time, good but not great season (high counting stats on a team that threw a ton)

Year three, top five type season. Team still throws a ton, so high counting stats, but he is emerging as a stud.
Year four, little regression in what he contributes, but team won SB, so all good, another very good season
Year five, Good season, slight reduction in production, but for his first time he throws more TDs than picks most top QBs are doing that though.

Then, BAM, knees kick in, and he's not really a top QB anymore. He'll have one more Pro Bowl caliber season. Thats it, 2 very good, but not great, seasons and three other good seasons. He was a great talent, but injuries prevented him from really completing his HOF career as it should have been. Thats different than Calvin Johnson who had 2 legendary seasons and 5 other good to very good seasons, and a couple other solid ones. Or to cross sports Koufax who had four legendary seasons and two other very good seasons.

Namath's best seasons still saw him throw more INTs than TDs (not something that yearly top QBs consistently did back then). He never really had a 2-3 year stretch of legendary greatness (peaks like Sayers, Koufax, or Johnson), nor was he very good for a long time. He couldve been, but injuries prevented that.

I agree with what you said. I am just saying for his era. If the NFL cease to exist after 1977, Joe Namath wouldnt be in the hall of fame ? I dont think people realize how new the league of the NFL is. What separates people like Joe Namath and **** Butkus is yes they had short careers but having 2-4 great seasons plus the championships and awards makes a big deal if you only played for 11 seasons or less. People will remember more of your great seasons then bad seasons especially if they know you started to decline due to injuries and drugs ( Joe). Back in those days people didn't care about competition percentages, QBR, TDs and etc. It was more about leadership and winning and thats what Joe did. Joe is not a top 20 quarterback but he deserves to be in the NFL hall of fame more then Gatti should be in the boxing hall of fame. If Gatti gets in just because of his trilogy with ward then Broadway Joe can walk in for his MVP, Rookie of the year, superbowl and passing leader years because back in those days thats the only thing that matter. They didn't start to care about stats until the 80s. Even my cowboys in the 70s didn't have crazy stats. Football is a team sport. Bob Hayes and drew Pearson didn't have crazy stats or a long career but you know what people remember? Them championships and them making thos catches period. Both HOFers.

Just win, baby - Al Davis best quote.

Gatti really didn't win sht. He was never lineal, unified or fighter of the year. Now he won fight of the year but to me thats not enough.

George Kambosos Jr should get in before Vinny or Gatti and maybe even Boom Boom and I like Mancini but if Joe Namath got in for his personality so did Boom boom and Gatti with less accolades and talent. Remember Joe also won a national championship in college for Alabama prior to the NFL his football legacy is good on both ends.