No matter how hard I look, I just don't see Gabriel as HOF

[SixtiesFan]

As much as we'd love to see some get into the HOF, perhaps (very sadly, maybe unfairly) they will have to simply serve as - I guess you can call them - 'gate keepers'. They stay on the edge, but they can't get in because if they do, then quite a few lesser others will then have to enter or at least be the borderline-guys instead who then everyone insists gets in as well; and then it never ends. 'Gate keepers' simply have to "take one for the team" to prevent things from really getting out of hand.

It is a bummer. Ken Anderson a great example! Perhaps I should mention Gabriel as well but I honestly know significantly even less about him then everyone else. In either event, Anderson (and perhaps Gabriel as well) may simply have to unfortunately be that very...'gate keeper'. As much as I love Ken Anderson and Ken Stabler, end of day, I think the difference between them (fair or not) is the latter winning a SB whereas the former did not. In my humble opinion, I think Stabler would have still gotten in when he did if he were still alive. If Cincy wins at Pontiac in January '82, then I think Anderson is in already. Especially if the following seasons play out as they did, SF/Montana (whom they beat) still winning it all in '84, '88, and '89 the way they did. Perhaps that Bengal squad would be seen as a sort-of latter-day '60 Eagles hence giving Anderson that very boost to Canton. Fair or not, Namath isn't in Canton (nor on that 'Brady Bunch' episode) without SBIII and that pregame guarantee to boot. How many Steelers aren't in Canton (how many more Cowboys are in) if they lose SBXIII? How many less (many more) if they also lost SBX as well? Jackie Smith a first-ballot if he makes that catch and Dallas wins!

Canton should include at least the 'best of the best' if not 'best OF the best of the best'. And, fair or not, championships are a significant determinate for the most part. If Joe Montana spends his first ten years in StL, and then the next six in Phoenix, would he (fair or not) be even near 'gate keeper'? Would he be seen as much better then Neil Lomax?

The thinking for a long time has been that if Ken Anderson had brought the Bengals from behind to win Super Bowl XVI, he would be in the HOF.

[rewing84]

As much as we'd love to see some get into the HOF, perhaps (very sadly, maybe unfairly) they will have to simply serve as - I guess you can call them - 'gate keepers'. They stay on the edge, but they can't get in because if they do, then quite a few lesser others will then have to enter or at least be the borderline-guys instead who then everyone insists gets in as well; and then it never ends. 'Gate keepers' simply have to "take one for the team" to prevent things from really getting out of hand.

It is a bummer. Ken Anderson a great example! Perhaps I should mention Gabriel as well but I honestly know significantly even less about him then everyone else. In either event, Anderson (and perhaps Gabriel as well) may simply have to unfortunately be that very...'gate keeper'. As much as I love Ken Anderson and Ken Stabler, end of day, I think the difference between them (fair or not) is the latter winning a SB whereas the former did not. In my humble opinion, I think Stabler would have still gotten in when he did if he were still alive. If Cincy wins at Pontiac in January '82, then I think Anderson is in already. Especially if the following seasons play out as they did, SF/Montana (whom they beat) still winning it all in '84, '88, and '89 the way they did. Perhaps that Bengal squad would be seen as a sort-of latter-day '60 Eagles hence giving Anderson that very boost to Canton. Fair or not, Namath isn't in Canton (nor on that 'Brady Bunch' episode) without SBIII and that pregame guarantee to boot. How many Steelers aren't in Canton (how many more Cowboys are in) if they lose SBXIII? How many less (many more) if they also lost SBX as well? Jackie Smith a first-ballot if he makes that catch and Dallas wins!

Canton should include at least the 'best of the best' if not 'best OF the best of the best'. And, fair or not, championships are a significant determinate for the most part. If Joe Montana spends his first ten years in StL, and then the next six in Phoenix, would he (fair or not) be even near 'gate keeper'? Would he be seen as much better then Neil Lomax?

The thinking for a long time has been that if Ken Anderson had brought the Bengals from behind to win Super Bowl XVI, he would be in the HOF.

Good Thought

[Bryan]

Rate+ is just passer rating adjusted for year. And Anderson had a higher rating than Gabriel. Passer rating is around 30-40% based on yards per attempt and about that on completion percentage. Gabriel threw a lot of balls away, he just didn't seem to care about completion percentage that much. Of course, he wanted to complete passes, but when he's move in pocket, if nothing was there he'd throw the ball at the linemen's head or away when he was being sacked.

Stats like passer rating are going to favor system QB like Anderson. Walsh was likely first coach to "coach to the statistic" or design things that reflected well. Walsh was a genius in that kind of thing.

But my thing with Anderson is not his stats or any kind of derivative of statistics, they are likely better than any of the QBs not in the HOF. The question is if thay are good enough for HOF. And maybe they are.

The issue with Anderson is consistency. Giving him an "excellent" in 1976 is generous as is a "good" in 1979 but that's a total of 7 EX/GD seasons.

Gabriel played in Marchibroda's system which allowed him to check off to his RBs. Tom Moore had 60 reception in 66, Larry Smith had 46 receptions in 69, Les Josephson had 44 in 70. This increased Gabriel's Comp%, lowered his INT%, but also cut into his YPA. Again, Gabriel won an MVP in 1969 with the lowest YPA (6.4) of any NFL QB...even the Steelers' Dick Shiner had a 6.8 YPA. Gabriel's high passer rating was based on him ranking 3rd in Comp% and 1st in INT%, both products of Marchibroda's system.

Anderson's MVP was post-Walsh with Infante's system. Even if you downgrade Anderson's 74-75 seasons as being a product of Bill Walsh's system, it's not like Anderson was simply completing short passes to no affect. He led the NFL in passing yardage both years, as well as YPA with totals of 8.1 and 8.4. So yeah, if Anderson was merely a system QB, I don't know what more he could have really done to impress you. Anderson's peaks are much higher than Gabriel's.

If giving Anderson and 'excellent' in 1976 is generous, then I don't know what to say about giving Roman Gabriel an excellent in 1968. Gabriel's 70 rating was league average, 9th in YPA, 11th in comp%, 6th in yards, tied for 5th in TDs, 6th in INT%. I don't really see the excellence.

I agree with you in that I don't think Anderson's stats are good enough for the HOF...if they were, he'd be in by now. But there is enough 'black ink' on Anderson's resume to put forth an 'underrated' argument IMO. It seems like you have to argue AGAINST Anderson's accomplishments to justify him being out of Canton, whereas you have to amplify Gabriel's accomplishments (11-11-1 starter) to justify him being included in Canton. JMO.

Since I love HOF analogies, I'd say Ken Anderson is the Lee Smith of QBs whereas Roman Gabriel is the Harold Baines of QBs.

[JohnTurney]

It seems like you have to argue AGAINST Anderson's accomplishments to justify him being out of Canton, whereas you have to amplify Gabriel's accomplishments (11-11-1 starter) to justify him being included in Canton. JMO.

Since I love HOF analogies, I'd say Ken Anderson is the Lee Smith of QBs whereas Roman Gabriel is the Harold Baines of QBs.

Have to differ. Anderson's issue is not stats. His stats are fine. It's just that they have to be puffed up and re-worked and put through the computer to make him HOF-worthy (AV and Rate+) and all that. But the Anderson supporters never seem to dock him for his inconsistency. The "two hump" shape of his career.

As far as Gabriel and the 11-11-1, the only person I know that has neer brought that up is me. And I have never thought Gabriel is a HOF, and with the recent push on Twitter by someone who is interested in seeing it happen I took another look, a closer look if you will. And even then I cannot see Gabriel as a HOFer. Maybe that guy has used that 11-11-1 to bolster his case and I have not seen it, but that was simply an interesting tidbit for me, not a data point to argue for HOF.

However, I did use it as a data point to show Anderson's career is not that superior (if at all) to Gabriel. Anderson's career, IMO, is a very solid HOVG, like Gabriel (and Brodie and Simms and so on).

As far as analogies, I think Anderson is more like Dave Parker's two-humped career. And Gabriel is more like Bobby Murcer (a decade or so of consistent play, with early peak -MVP-level in 1971-73). Not a perfect analogy, but Parker was MVP-level in late-1970s and then mid-1980s. But to appreciate Murcer and Gabriel you have to look at more than the numbers, Murcer was a solid all-round guy, but not super in anything. Better base runner than he got credit for...stuff like that.

I kind of saw Lee Smith as top-notch with good play year after year, no dips. Anderson had the dips. He dipped in late-1970s then fell of fast after 1982. The "comeback of 1981-82" was just that, two years. Had he played well (red level) 1983-85 or so, then maybe.

That said, I think the HOF voters will fall for the passer rating stats of Anderson. They will pull a Walsh quote or two out of their butts and get him in the HOF. And with Stabler in it's hard to keep Anderson out. I view them as about even. (HOVG = some excellent seasons, some so-so seasons)

I realize were are slicing the tomato pretty thin on these arguments, far more than the HOF committee does. But when people say "Anderson deserves the HOF" I just scratch my head and try and understand why they say that and it comes down to passer rating or some derivative of it.

As far as Gabriel or Anderson---if you ask me who had better career, to me too close. If you ask who was better to watch, it was Gabriel. He was hypnotizing to watch in him prime with his size, and arm, and power running and play-calling and all that. But, when it counted he could win some (vexed Dallas his whole career and had great run in 1967) but he'd not come through in the clutch---playoffs. Same with Anderson.

To me, and no offense, it's the Andeson folks who have to massage data to make him HOFer. The guy or group supporting Gabriel are not doing that. Gabriel's play just was not conducive to a high passer rating. His "HOF stuff" in my mind is the eye test and some thing he passes the HOF eye test. He fails the HOF eye test to me.

Anderson's peaks are much higher than Gabriel's.

Statistically in terms of the passer rating that is makes sense but is it true of who was the better quarterback? Opinions can differ, but I think both had high peaks, but neither has a peak that can be said is much higher than the other. Reasonable people can disagree of course. Gabriel's peak was MVP-level in 1967, 1969 and in 1973. Anderson was MVP level in perhaps 1975 and 1981-82.

And as par as the dip, I know Anderson was hurt in late-1970s. but it's hard to explain being a 60% completion guy and a 90 passer rating guy from 1973-75 to a 54% and 71 rating guy from 1976-79, No? Is none o that on him?

And he's a guy who threw 20 or more TDs twice? Gabriel 3 times?

If we held a PFRA draft for non-HOF players I'd truly not draft a QB high because if someone takes Anderson on first round, I know I'd get a guy just as good later, with a Brodie, Gabriel, Simms, Esiason, Cunningham---all the MVPs who are right on the HOVG/HOF cusp...the team taking Anderson would not have a huge advantage IMO

[Bryan]

I can agree with a Parker-Murcer analogy. Good stuff.

[JohnTurney]

I can agree with a Parker-Murcer analogy. Good stuff.

Ironically, I'd put Parker in HOF and not Murcer.

Other baseball non-HOFers that intrigue me due to defense and in some cases base running
Graig Nettles (should have had maybe 4-5 of Brooks Robinson's gold gloves)
Willie Davis (lost out on some gold gloves due to Mays)
Al Oliver
Jim Kaat
Tommy John

[Bryan]

Ironically, I'd put Parker in HOF and not Murcer.

See?!

Other baseball non-HOFers that intrigue me due to defense and in some cases base running
Graig Nettles (should have had maybe 4-5 of Brooks Robinson's gold gloves)
Willie Davis (lost out on some gold gloves due to Mays)
Al Oliver
Jim Kaat
Tommy John

I've read some good Al Oliver stories. Interesting career and interesting guy. Probably a better HOF choice than Baines, TBH.

[bachslunch]

Have to differ. Anderson's issue is not stats. His stats are fine. It's just that they have to be puffed up and re-worked and put through the computer to make him HOF-worthy (AV and Rate+) and all that. But the Anderson supporters never seem to dock him for his inconsistency. The "two hump" shape of his career.

The question one might ask is whether looking at QB stats that way is necessarily a bad thing. Is it "puffed up" or legit? Perhaps one can make a case that it's the former, but I don't see why the latter must automatically be ruled out.

I do agree the bactrian camel shape of his career is there. Whether that's a problem or not is of course another question. But I also think Bryan's point of how high the peak is also can come into play.

YMMV, of course.

[bachslunch]

I can agree with a Parker-Murcer analogy. Good stuff.

Ironically, I'd put Parker in HOF and not Murcer.

Other baseball non-HOFers that intrigue me due to defense and in some cases base running
Graig Nettles (should have had maybe 4-5 of Brooks Robinson's gold gloves)
Willie Davis (lost out on some gold gloves due to Mays)
Al Oliver
Jim Kaat
Tommy John

Nettles and Davis actually have pretty fair HoF arguments. There's no question their hitting stats look less impressive given that they played in the 60s-70s dead ball era.

Nettles is clearly hurt by his low BA (.248). Looking at his OBP and WAR makes a difference, as he was really good at things more traditional stats don't account for. And he was actually pretty good at slugging/HRs, just not at Mike Schmidt level. You're also right about his having an excellent fielding reputation. He's in the Hall of Merit (none of the rest are) and probably has the best case of these folks.

Davis was a good baserunner and fielder reportedly. Not great at drawing walks, though.

Oliver has a lot of hits, though he's more a HoVG level player. Not a great fielder or baserunner, if memory serves. Also not so great drawing walks.

Kaat and John have the win totals, but they're borderline. I'd be fine if John got in, though (he's the better of the two). Kaat, eh, not so much. John is 56th all time in WAR and 111 ERA+, Kaat 105th and 108 ERA+. Kaat had a ton of GGs and was reportedly a fine fielder, though.

[Rupert Patrick]

Ironically, I'd put Parker in HOF and not Murcer.

See?!

Other baseball non-HOFers that intrigue me due to defense and in some cases base running
Graig Nettles (should have had maybe 4-5 of Brooks Robinson's gold gloves)
Willie Davis (lost out on some gold gloves due to Mays)
Al Oliver
Jim Kaat
Tommy John

I've read some good Al Oliver stories. Interesting career and interesting guy. Probably a better HOF choice than Baines, TBH.

Dave Parker would have been a better choice than Baines, Oliver also. As a lifelong Pirates fan, the main reason (to me) that Parker most likely will never make the HOF is because we all know the reason for the two humps in his career, that he had a bad substance problem that pretty much wiped out his 1981-83 seasons. He was also one of the focal points for the 1985 Pittsburgh drug trials. I was thinking about that yesterday when watching the Baseball Hall of Fame induction, that Tim Raines was the only player who came up in the Pittsburgh drug trials who made the Hall of Fame, and it took him a long time. Dave Parker and Keith Hernandez were (in a baseball sense) HOVG types, with Parker being borderline HOF, Al Oliver was also definitely a HOVG type too. I don't belong to SABR and don't know if they have anything like HOVG.

I know some have advocated Tommy John for the BBHOF based on his career and being the first to have the rotator cuff surgery that has saved so many careers, but I can't see him getting credit for a surgery with his name on it.