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

[JohnTurney]

The question one might ask is whether looking at QB stats that way is necessarily a bad thing. Is it "puffed up" or legit? .

It's both, IMO.

All of us have our favs, and there are a few on Twitter, Chase and Ryan Michael who like the "analytics" of QBs, especially. And they, IMO, take the basic stats and repackage them in all sorts of ways and it still is some derivation of the passer rating. And that's fine. For one data points.

I only speak for myself, of course, but to ME, a HOF is more than one thing. If you debate with Viking fans that will cite you his 282 game streak and say "that is enough". I disagree. That is one "intangible" that is a great thing, but his stats are okay, his "honors" are poor, and team success is good, but not Super (pun intended).

I prefer a more complete approach. The careers that impress me have 3-4 things in which they "score" well. I call it Stats, Honors, Wins, Testimonials, Intangibles. If a guy does well in 2-3 or those he's likely a solid HOFer. If they do well in 1, then maybe not. The borderline might be 1-2 or -3 I don't know.

But for a Jim Marshall he has the streak and longevity. He may even have a testimonial or two (one of best 5 DEs I faced by some left tackle)

Gabriel, stats are okay, honors okay, wins, okay, testimonials (Bob Lilly) okay, Intangibles, good, IMO. Total = NOT HOF
Anderson stats good, honors good, wins okay to so-so, testimonials okay, intangibles? so-so. Injured a lot, not reputation for toughness, inconsistency in peak years = Not HOF

it is my view that Michael and Stuart focus on the stats and then have to recreate them in a way that puffs them up and never answer the 1976-79 54%, 79 passer rating. I mean if the key thing is the passer rating in whatever form, then why the doldrums?

If I look at a LeRoy Butler I see good stats, good honors (headed by All-Decade), wins (ring) pretty good, intangibles (played slot corner well) then I see an overall HOFer.

An Ed Reed would be great stats, great honors, great wins, great intangibles, and a first-ballot HOF

I see Anderson and Gabriel and Brodie and so on as basically the same. Call them "6s" and HOF-level is 6.5-10 on scale of 10. Maybe Anderson is a 6.2 and a Gabriel is a 6.0 and Brodie a 5.9 but all, are "6s" if you get my meaning

[JohnTurney]

Keith Hernandez

He's on my intriguing list, too. most metrics have him as a top 5 fielding 1st baseman...good hitter with little power

I'd add Gil Hodges, too.

[bachslunch]

Keith Hernandez

He's on my intriguing list, too. most metrics have him as a top 5 fielding 1st baseman...good hitter with little power

I'd add Gil Hodges, too.

Hernandez has a strong HoF argument, actually. He didn't have classic first baseman power, but he excelled in most everything else, especially fielding. He ranks 18th in WAR at the position, which is better than several 1B already in (about the same as Jake Beckley and Harmon Killebrew). I'd be fine if he got in on a VC ballot one of these years.

Hodges has a more dubious case despite being arguably the best 1B in the NL at the time (unless you count Stan Musial, who played there some years). He's 38th in career WAR at the position, just below Frank Chance (who also gets managerial credit), and there aren't any other HoF 1B in his general vicinity. You have to give him a lot of managerial credit (though he did helm the '69 Mets) and credit for intangibles such as being an early supporter of Jackie Robinson to justify electing him. Depends on how you want to weigh things.

[JohnTurney]

Hodges has a more dubious case despite being arguably the best 1B in the NL at the time (unless you count Stan Musial, who played there some years). He's 38th in career WAR at the position, just below Frank Chance (who also gets managerial credit), and there aren't any other HoF 1B in his general vicinity. You have to give him a lot of managerial credit (though he did helm the '69 Mets) and credit for intangibles such as being an early supporter of Jackie Robinson to justify electing him. Depends on how you want to weigh things.

I am no expert and never saw Hodges play. So I really don't know if he was good fielder or not. He had the rep. Earned or hype? No idea. There are some who say he was great others who use modern metrics that show he was just okay,

I do know from 1949-59 he average 30 homers and 101 RBIs and his .281

maybe being a good-excellent fielder and good hitter isn't enough, but like the Stabler, Floyd Little elections the Harold Baines election changed the standars enough for
me to speculate that Hodges was jsut as good if not better, and same for Hernandez, Nettles, Parker and others that were good hitters and good fielders.

That is if the MLBHOF voters care about fielding...

[bachslunch]

Hodges has a more dubious case despite being arguably the best 1B in the NL at the time (unless you count Stan Musial, who played there some years). He's 38th in career WAR at the position, just below Frank Chance (who also gets managerial credit), and there aren't any other HoF 1B in his general vicinity. You have to give him a lot of managerial credit (though he did helm the '69 Mets) and credit for intangibles such as being an early supporter of Jackie Robinson to justify electing him. Depends on how you want to weigh things.

I am no expert and never saw Hodges play. So I really don't know if he was good fielder or not. He had the rep. Earned or hype? No idea. There are some who say he was great others who use modern metrics that show he was just okay,

I do know from 1949-59 he average 30 homers and 101 RBIs and his .281

maybe being a good-excellent fielder and good hitter isn't enough, but like the Stabler, Floyd Little elections the Harold Baines election changed the standars enough for
me to speculate that Hodges was jsut as good if not better, and same for Hernandez, Nettles, Parker and others that were good hitters and good fielders.

That is if the MLBHOF voters care about fielding...

Have hard the same thing about Hodges with the glove. Have heard mostly positive things, though.

My understanding is that Ebbets Field was a hitter's park, so the 30/101/.281 over a 10-year stretch may not be as impressive as it looks on paper.

For me, I'm more comfortable seeing Baines as an outlier and a mistake. He's so far below the line that you'd have to let in everyone but you and me into the HoF if he's the new floor. At least Hodges would be a higher level of floor than Baines.

[Hail Casares]

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.

Rate+ isn't really re-worked and put through a computer. It's just normalizing the passer rating of the league to 100 and showing you how far above or below that point a player's passer rating was. There's no subjectivity in the number. It just makes the number more objective and easier to contextualize when some youngster sees an 80 passer rating from 1968 and thinks the player sucked..but that 80 passer rating was really like 20% better than the league average(Rate+ of 120)

AV is what it is. It has it's flaws and even PFR says it's not some end all be all. It's simply trying to create a point of comparison for "quality" or "value" of the player and a lot of it depends on how that player's team did or if got awards(which give the players AV a bump within the system)

In regards to Ken Anderson, I think he deserves to be in the HOF. He's got enough black ink on the sheet IMO, enough pelts on the wall(PB, AP, and MVP). I think he was a better player than Gabriel and Bryan already did a good job of covering that.

I'm also a "Stabler HOF" guy as well and those pro-arguments were already covered at length.

[JohnTurney]

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.

Rate+ isn't really re-worked and put through a computer. It's just normalizing the passer rating of the league to 100 and showing you how far above or below that point a player's passer rating was. There's no subjectivity in the number. It just makes the number more objective and easier to contextualize when some youngster sees an 80 passer rating from 1968 and thinks the player sucked..but that 80 passer rating was really like 20% better than the league average(Rate+ of 120)

AV is what it is. It has it's flaws and even PFR says it's not some end all be all. It's simply trying to create a point of comparison for "quality" or "value" of the player and a lot of it depends on how that player's team did or if got awards(which give the players AV a bump within the system)

In regards to Ken Anderson, I think he deserves to be in the HOF. He's got enough black ink on the sheet IMO, enough pelts on the wall(PB, AP, and MVP). I think he was a better player than Gabriel and Bryan already did a good job of covering that.

I'm also a "Stabler HOF" guy as well and those pro-arguments were already covered at length.

I know exactly how it's done. I was using a figure of speech and was mostly referring to that post by whoever that guy is in the link earlier in the thread. And also the Football Persepctive stuff. The Rate+ wasn't what I was referring to. Since I was pretty young I was doing "Rate+" in my head. When passer ratings started to climb in late-1970s and early 1980s I knew that there was "inflation". Some folks think Rate+ is something new, it's not, really. All one had to know was Johnny Unitas was 78.2 and lesser quarterbacks like Ken Anderson were ranked #1 all time as early as 1975 or 1976. From then on the passer rating rose on the bullsh$1 meter. Passer rating has some uses, it's not "nothing" but it's the classic "stat for losers" things and there is lots of literature dedicated to that.

As far as "AV" it is almost no use for the reasons citing. If fact, it borders on destructive because of the size of PFR... people with little background use it to create "Top 100" lists or "All-Time teams". They simply ape that data and organize it into teams and it's so far off as a metric in terms of mearing individual players that it spreads real misinformation.

If someone thinks Anderson is better that Gabriel, fine. I think they are about even, neither one far enough ahead of the others to really cause separation.

My issue is that neither one, no matter who is better, really looks good enough to be HOF. Anderson, even in his "comeback" 1981 and 1982----lasted just 2 years. 1983 was a reall dropoff. And his "peak" was really what? 1973-75, 76? It's just not that many good seasons. And if it IS, if Anderson gets in, there is no way Gabriel and Brodie can be held out. It's the sillery slope.

Once Floyd Little got in, the bar is so low that there may be 10 running backs that are 'deserving'. Same with Stabler. If you can have just 4-5 good seasons and an equal amoung of bad seasons... the the bar is so low tons of guys become qualified for HOF

[rewing84]

Not buying John's logic on Anderson and stabler

[JohnTurney]

Not buying John's logic on Anderson and stabler

I think part of the disconnect is the pro-QB bias that seems to exist. So many people give quarterbacks a pass, will make every excuse for a poor season or set of seasons, reason for losing, not winning a SB or "if they had won SB XVI he'd be already in"... and so one

But they don't do it for lineman, linebackers, DBs, etc...

QBs do get a lot of the credit, but with that, they should get their share of the blame.

With Stabler, I often quote Al LoCasalle. He said "Stabler had some great seasons, but he had more bad seasons". That's how he was viewed by Al Davis because LoCasalle usually held same opinion as Davis.

For Anderson, to me, again, if Stabler is in, now that the bar is lowered it's hard to deny him. He, too, had some great seasons, and had about the same about of so-so seasons. And if Anderson gets in, hard to deny those like Gabriel, Brodie, even Simms and Esiason...those guys have MVPs, good stats for their era and some other intangibles.

So, my hope is the Blue Ribbon Committee doesn't have that bias because really, there is no quarterback who can stand on hill and scream he got ripped off. Anderson can say, if you look at stats, and ignore my poor seasons, then I am worthy....but even then even most ardent Anderson fans have to admit he's borderline at best.

[Hail Casares]

Since I was pretty young I was doing "Rate+" in my head.

LOL.

Ok.

As far as "AV" it is almost no use for the reasons citing. If fact, it borders on destructive because of the size of PFR... people with little background use it to create "Top 100" lists or "All-Time teams".

Ok, but even PFR wouldn't say to use it in order to do that. You're blaming PFR for people misusing a number. That's silly. If your issue with AV stems from people being dumb about using it, then I'd say it's a pretty weak case. I use it in the way that PFR says it should be used or viewed through because that was the intention with the number.