Worst of the Best: The Hockey Hall of Fame's Worst Players by Position

Today is the conclusion of the "Worst of the Best" series, in which I look at the worst Hall of Famers of four different sports by position. After previous looks at the baseball, football, and basketball Halls of Fame, it is now time to look at the Hockey Hall of Fame's worst players by position. Since there are usually two defensemen on the ice at the same time, my "Worst of the Best" team will also have two defensemen. Keep in my that I don't necessarily think that the players I have chosen as the "Worst" were bad players or anything like that, it's just that I find their place in the Hockey Hall of Fame somewhat befuddling. Well, as the Black Eyed Peas would say, let's get it started.

D: Leo Boivin, Playing Career 1952-1970, Inducted 1986

A checking defenseman, Boivin was most remembered for his devastating body checks that he dealt out with relish during his 19 year career. While Boivin had a long career, it's hard to see what exactly made him stand out to Hall voters. After all, Boivin only played in three All-Star games, never made an All-League team, and in his 19 seasons, only saw action in the postseason in seven of those seasons, even though he played the majority of his career in the Original Six era and had a 4 out of 6 chance to make the playoffs. Was Boivin a good player? Sure, but was he memorable enough to merit inclusion into the Hall of Fame? Well, I'm not so sure about that.

If Boivin is in, then why not:

J.C. Trembley? Trembley played in seven All-Star games (although three of which he made because those games were the All-Star team against his Montreal Canadiens), made the All-NHL second team in 1968 and the All-NHL first team in 1971. While with the Canadiens, Trembley was a key member of five Stanley Cup winning teams. After the 1972 season, Trembley jumped to the Quebec Nordiques of the WHA, and while in Quebec, Trembley won two Dennis Murphy awards as the league's best defenseman and is second all-time in WHA history with 358 assists. Trembley was a heck of a defenseman in the NHL and probably the best defenseman in WHA History, but his jump to the WHA may have cost Trembley a spot in the Hall of Fame.

D- Fern Flaman - 1945-1961, Inducted 1990

Flaman was once traded with Leo Boivin  by the Boston Bruins to the Toronto Maple Leafs in 1950. Four years later, both players were traded back to Boston in separate deals. Flaman was a little more accomplished than Boivin, making the All-NHL second team three times and playing in seven All-Star games. Flaman was a feared player who retired with the third most penalty minutes in NHL history. However, Flaman's playing career wasn't terribly memorable, and he was nearly a zero on the offensive end, scoring a point every four games and finishing his 17 year career with a mere 34 goals. So it's hard to see what exactly made Flaman stand out over other defensemen to get in the Hall.

If Flaman is in, then why not:

Gus Mortson, Mortson and Flaman were rather similar players, as both were defensemen that played around the same time and racked up penalty minutes as two of the most aggressive players of their era. Mortson played in eight All-Star games (six as an All-Star, two as a member of the Toronto Maple Leafs), was an All-NHL first team defender in 1949-50, and led the NHL in penalty minutes four times. Mortson also was a member of four Stanley Cup winners with the Maple Leafs. To me, Flaman and Mortson were quite similar players with similar resumes, but one is in the Hall while the other is out, so go figure.

LW: Dick Duff, 1955-1972, Inducted 2006

To be honest, I had a hard choice picking between Duff and Clark Gilles here, but ultimately I went with Duff because his induction was so strange. After over 30 years of retirement, Duff was suddenly voted into the Hall in 2006, leaving many people to wonder, who is Dick Duff? Well, Duff was a member of six Stanley Cup winning teams with the Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadiens. He also played in seven All-Star games, although four of those were because he was a member of the defending championship team. Duff was considered to be a better postseason player than regular season player, somewhat like hockey's version of Robert Horry or the Claude Lemieux of the 1960s. Of course, neither of those guys are in the Hall of Fame as of yet and its hard to see why Duff is either. He never scored more than 53 points in a single season, never had a 30 goal season, and its not as if the Hall needed more Maple Leafs or Canadiens from that era in the Hall of Fame. Yes, Duff was a contributor to many Stanley Cup winning teams, but so were Kris Draper, and Kevin Lowe, and Craig MacTavish. So what makes Duff different from any of those guys?

If Duff is in, then why not:

Dean Prentice? During Duff's playing career (1955-1972), Prentice scored more goals (353-283) and considerably more points (787-572) than Duff.  Prentice played in four All-Star games, and in 1960 was named to the NHL All-Second team. Duff had five 20-goal seasons to his credit, while Prentice had 10 during his career. For his career, Prentice finished with 391 goals, retiring as the 12th leading goal scorer in NHL history. Yes, Prentice never won a Stanley Cup, but he also didn't have the fortune of playing with a roster full of Hall of Famers like Duff did.

C: Bernie Federko, 1977-1990, Inducted 2002

Federko has some impressive numbers that are in part due to the high scoring era in which he played in. In his career, Federko put up four 100 point seasons and finished with 1,130 points. It should also be noted that Federko scored 101 points in 90 playoff while playing for some St. Louis Blues teams that weren't exactly loaded with talent. However, Federko never finished higher than eighth in points, never finished in the top 10 in goals, and only played in two All-Star games during his 14 year career. Federko was a very good player, but in my opinion, he wasn't a great player.

If Federko is in, then why not:

Adam Oates? Oates was actually traded for Federko in 1989 in a deal that didn't work out so well for the Red Wings, as Federko only lasted one year in Detroit. Meanwhile, Oates was just getting started on a career that landed him in five All-Star games and a spot on the 1990-91 All-NHL second team. During his career, Oates led the NHL in assists three times, finished in the top three in points three times, and finished in the top ten in assists in 12 different seasons. Oates ranks 16th all-time in points with 1,420, and is sixth in assists all-time with 1,079. Like Federko, Oates never won a Stanley Cup, but did play in two Stanley Cup Finals and scored 156 points in 163 career playoff games. Put all that together, and Oates looks like a Hall of Famer to me, but he is still on the outside looking in.

RW: Glenn Anderson - 1981-1996, Inducted 2008

Anderson, like Federko, played the majority of his career in the high scoring 1980s and therefore, was able to put up some impressive numbers that were in large part due to his talents, but also was somewhat due to the era in which he played in. Anderson put up some impressive numbers during his career (498 goals, 601 assists), but only finished in the top 10 in goals three times and in the top 10 in points once. A four time All-Star, Anderson is most known for his playoff exploits with the Edmonton Oilers during their dynasty, as Anderson ranks fourth in career playoff points with 214 and has his name etched on six Stanley Cups. However, one could argue that Anderson was merely the beneficiary of playing with such great players such as Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Jari Kurri, and Paul Coffey, and the only reason he was able to play in so many playoff games was because of the talent of his teammates more than anything he did. Yes, Anderson did score a lot of key goals for the Oilers, but he also was never seriously considered more than a supporting player for the Oilers and was basically finished as a player by the time he hit 30. There's a reason why it took so long for Anderson to get into the Hall, it's because he's a borderline candidate.

If Anderson is in, then why not:

Pat Verbeek? Okay, Verbeek is also a borderline candidate much like Anderson, but in my opinion, the 'Little Ball of Hate' is just as, if not more deserving than Anderson. Verbeek has the unique distinction of being the only player in NHL history with over 500 goals (522) and over 2,500 penalty minutes (2,905, which ranks 11th all time). Verbeek didn't have a ton of big seasons and was only a two time All-Star, but he scored 35 goals or more in seven different seasons, like Anderson, and unlike Anderson, Verbeek was considered a good player on the defensive end of the ice. Verbeek may not have had the postseason success of Anderson, but he was a key member of the Dallas Stars' 1999 Stanley Cup team. Yes, Verbeek may have been too aggressive at times, as his penalty minutes number suggests, but his grit and goal-scoring ability made him an asset on any team he played with.

G- Chuck Rayner - 1941-1953, Inducted 1973

Rayner was a four-time All-Star, a three time member of the all-NHL second team and won the 1950 Hart Trophy as the league's most valuable player, which is a feat only four other goalies have accomplished. While he accomplished a lot, the fact is that Rayner is one of only two goalies (Gump Worsley being the other) to have a career losing record and be a member of Hockey's Hall of Fame. Other than losses, the only category Rayner led the league in was shutouts, with five in 1947, and for his career, Rayner finished with a record of 138-208-77. Yes, I admit that Rayner played behind some pretty bad teams during his career, but a .422 winning percentage in goal is not stellar by any means, so that's why Rayner is on this list.

If Rayner is in, then why not:

Mike Richter? Both Rayner and Richter were career long Rangers, and both men backstopped the Rangers to a game 7 of a Stanley Cup Final. While Rayner's Rangers came up short in 1950, it was Richter who was the man between the pipes as the Rangers ended their 54-year long Stanley Cup drought in 1994. During his career, Richter played in three All-Star games and is one of only 24 goalies to finish his career with over 300 wins (301). Richter finished his career with a .904 save percentage and 2.89 GAA, and played even better in the postseason, with a .909 save percentage, a 2.61 GAA, and nine career postseason shutouts to his credit. Richter also was a three-time Olympian for the USA, and backstopped Team USA to a Silver Medal in the 2002 Olympics and a Gold Medal at the 1996 World Cup, where he also won the MVP award for his play in that event. Yes, Richter was a fine goaltender for the Rangers, and would be a worthy addition to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Well, thanks for reading. If you happen to agree or disagree with my selections, than feel free to express your opinions on this topic. If you have any comments on this post, or ideas for future posts, than send me them either by leaving a comment or by e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.

Worst of the Best: Basketball Hall of Fame's Worst Players by Position

Continuing with our series of the worst Hall of Famers in sports history is today's post about the bottom of the top-notch, the Basketball Hall of Fame's worst players by position. If you are interested, you can read the previous entries about the pro football and baseball Hall of Fame's worst of the best here and here, respectively. So, let's get started, shall we?

SF: Bill Bradley, Playing Career 1968-1977, Inducted 1983

Bradley was a two time All-American at Princeton and considered one of the greatest college basketball players of all time. After his playing career, Bradley had a quite successful career in politics, even running for the presidential nomination for the democratic party in 2000, eventually losing to Al Gore. His NBA career, however, can best be described as unspectacular. His best season took place in 1973, where Bradley averaged 16.1 points and 4.5 assists per game for a championship New York Knicks team. Those numbers are remarkably similar to Rodney Stuckey's numbers last year (16.8 ppg, 4.8 apg) and nobody around the NBA regards Stuckey as a potential Hall of Famer at this point. Bradley never finished in the top 10 in any statistcal category except for free throw percentage, and made only one All-Star game. During his career, Bradley's averages (12.4, ppg, 3.2 rpg, and 3.4 apg) are similar to Willie Anderson (12.2, 3.8, and 3.8) and if Willie Anderson is a Hall of Famer, then I'll play chicken on I-285. Bradley was a decent player who got in mainly because of his fame and because his teams won two championships in New York, although Bradley was, at best, the fourth best player on those teams.

If Bradley is in, then why not:

Bernard King?  King, like Bradley, also played for the Knicks, as well as the Nets, Warriors, Jazz, and Bullets. King, however, could fill up the basket at will. A four time All-Star, King led the NBA in points per game in 1984-85 (32.9), and finished in the top ten in that stat four other seasons. King was also a two-time first team All NBA forward, and his career 22.5 PPG average is the highest among eligible players not yet elected in the Hall of Fame. Not only that, but King had a higher career scoring average than Hall of Famers Alex English, Clyde Drexler, Billy Cunningham, Bob Mcadoo, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, and many other Hall of Famers. True, King never won an NBA Championship, nor did he come close, but he was a much better player than Bradley, and if King hadn't of suffered a horrific knee injury that basically took two years off his prime, who knows what kind of numbers King would have posted.

PF: Clyde Lovellette, 1954-1964, Inducted 1988

Like Bradley, Lovellette was a superstar in college, a three time All-American and the Most Outstanding Player of the 1952 Final Four for Kansas. In the NBA, Lovellette wasn't a bad player, making four All-Star games and average over 20 points and 10 rebounds per game in five separate seasons.  However, Lovellette was never the best player on any of his teams, and his statisitcs are very comparable to players like Willie Naulls, who will never get in to the Hall of Fame barring some unforseen remarkable occurrence. For his career, Lovellette finished averaging 17.0 ppg and 9.6 rpg, numbers similar to George McGinnis's NBA numbers (17.2, 9.8), and that's not counting McGinnis's ABA career. Lovellette made only one All-NBA team (a second team selection in 1955-56 and his large numbers are somewhat due to the fact that teams took a lot more shots per game during his career than today, so everybody's points and rebounds totals were inflated.

If Lovellette is in, then why not:

Rudy LaRusso? LaRusso is largely forgotten today (his Wikipedia entry has more about Gilligan's Island than anything LaRusso accomplished on the basketball court), but during his 10-year career, LaRusso played in five All-Star games, one more than Lovellette. During his first eight years, LaRusso was the man that did the dirty work for the Lakers while superstars Jerry West and Elgin Baylor did most of the scoring, which must have worked, as the Lakers played in five NBA Finals with LaRusso. Once LaRusso was traded to Golden State, he transformed his game, becoming a 20 ppg scorer for the Warriors and keeping up his solid defense, earning a spot on the NBA Defensive second team in 1968-69. Unfortunately, a chronically sore back caused LaRusso to retire after the 1969 season at age 31, despite coming off a season where he averaged 20.7 ppg and 8.3 rpg. Nevertheless, his career averages (15.6 ppg, 9.4 rpg) are quite comparable to Lovellette, and he played one more All-Star game than Lovellette, so maybe the Dartmouth alum has a case for the Basketball Hall of Fame.

C- Walt Bellamy, 1962-1975, Inducted 1993

Bellamy has some impressive numbers, to be sure. For his career, Bellamy scored 20,941 points, grabbed 14,241 rebounds (ninth all time), averaged 13.7 rebounds per game (seventh in NBA history) was the rookie of the year in 1961-62 with an impressive 31.6 ppg and 19.0 rpg, finishing second and third in each category. Bellamy was also a four-time All-Star, although curiously he never made an All-Star team after 1965. So why is Bellamy on this list as the worst center in the Hall of Fame. Well, one reason is that this was the toughest postion to choose from, but the other thing is that for all of his stats, Bellamy seemed to never make an impact on the game. He never made an all-league first or second team, he never led the league in a category other than field goal percentage in his rookie year, and he never won an NBA Title. In fact, Bellamy never even played in the NBA Finals, and his teams only got as far as the conference finals twice, this in spite of the fact that the playoffs only had three rounds instead of four during his career. In Bellamy's 13 full seasons, his teams missed the playoffs six times. Yes, Bellamy put up some great numbers, but that's all he did.

If Bellamy is in, then why not:

Artis Gilmore? Gilmore, like Bellamy, never won an NBA Title, never played in an NBA Finals. However, Gilmore did play in two ABA Finals, and his 1975 Kentucky Colonels won the ABA Title. During his five year ABA Career, Gilmore led the league in total rebounds in each five seasons, and in rebounds per game four out of five seasons. Gilmore also finished his ABA career as the league's all time leader in blocked shots with 1,431. Once he moved on to the NBA, Gilmore continued to be a top-notch center, playing in six NBA All-Star games, finish in the top 10 in blocks per game six times, in rebounds per game seven times, and he led the league in field goal percentage for four straight seasons. Gilmore has the highest field goal percentage (.599) in NBA history, and only three players in professional basketball history have more blocks than Gilmore's 3,178. His detractors will point out that Gilmore was a better player in the ABA, but so was Gilmore's teammate Dan Issel, and Issel is in the Hall of Fame in spite of the fact that when the Colonels had to trade one of the two, they kept Gilmore and dealt Issel, so it's obvious who Kentucky thought was the better player.

SG: Calvin Murphy - 1971-1983, Inducted 1993

Murphy was also a three time All-American before his pro career, with Murphy playing his college ball at Niagara University. One of the best free throw shooters in NBA history, if not the best, Murphy's .892 free throw percentage ranks seventh all-time. For his career, Murphy averaged 17.9 ppg and 4.4 apg, which are actually quite similar numbers to Charlie Scott's career if you take out his two years in the ABA (17.9, 4.8). Murphy averaged over 20 points per game in five different seasons, and finished in the top ten in apg in two seasons. However, Murphy never made an All-NBA team, played in only one All-Star game (1979), and his teams missed the playoffs more times than they made it (seven to six). Sure, Murphy's college career was impressive and probably helped him get elected, but I'm just not seeing how he can be considered a Hall of Famer, unless we credit him with having 14 kids by nine different women.

If Murphy is in, then why not:

Randy Smith? Smith, like Murphy, was undersized for his positon (the 6'2" Smith had to play a lot of small forward during his career). But that didn't stop Smith from excelling. A two time All-Star, Smith also was the MVP of the 1978 All-Star game and was named to the All-NBA second team in 1976. During his career, Smith averaged 20 or more points in four different seasons, finished in the top 10 in steals in five seasons, and is 25th in NBA history with 1.7 steals per game. Smith also played in 906 consecutive games, setting an all-time record (since broken by A.C. Green). For his career, Smith finished with an average of 16.7 ppg, 4.6 apg, and 1.7 steals per game. Not bad for a seventh round pick not expected to make the team as a rookie in 1972.

PG: KC Jones - 1959-1967, Inducted 1989

Jones is in the Hall of Fame solely because he was part of the Celtics Dynasty in the sixties, picking up eight championship rings from 1959-1966. Then again, Jones played with players such as Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, and Sam Jones, among others, so you can see why he won eight championships. In his own right, Jones was considered a top-notch defender and a glue guy for the Celtics. That's all well and good, but here's the thing. Jones was never named to an All-Star game, never even averaged more than 10 points a season and finished his career with a career average of 7.4 points a game and a .387 shooting percentage from the field. Jones played nine seasons, played starter's minutes (over 30 per game) for only four of those seasons, and was an offensive zero that never made an All-Star team. I think it's safe to say that the only reason Jones is in the Basketball Hall of Fame is because of the success of the teams he played on, not anything he did to stand out individually.

If Jones is in, then why not:

Jo Jo White?  White was the Celtics' point guard shortly after Jones left, and while he may have only two Championship rings to his credit, there's little doubt that White was the more valuable player. White was a seven time All-Star during his career, and also has two All-NBA second team selections to his credit. During his peak years (1971-77), White averaged 19.8 points and 5.5 assists per game, and was also named the MVP of the 1976 NBA Finals. Like Jones, White's number has been retired by the Celtics, yet he still remains on the outside of the Hall's doors in spite of being one of the best guards of his era and a key contributor to two Championship teams.

Well, thanks for reading. If you happen to agree or disagree with my selections, than feel free to express your opinions on this topic. If you have any comments on this post, or ideas for future posts, than send me them either by leaving a comment or by e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.

The Worst of the Best: The Baseball Hall of Fame's Worst Players by Position

Yesterday, the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee had an election for candidates of the post-expansion era. Of the 15 men on the list, including George Steinbrenner, Steve Garvey, and Ted Simmons, only one man, Pat Gillick, was elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Gillick was the GM for three World Series winning teams and built playoff teams in four different cities (Toronto, Baltimore, Seattle, Philadelphia), so I don't see why he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. However, it did get me to thinking, just who are the least deserving members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. So, here we are. Like the previous post about the worst Pro Football Hall of Famers, I will name the worst Hall of Famer by position.

C - Ray Schalk, playing career 1912-1929, elected 1955

Of all the position players in the Hall of Fame, Schalk's .253 career batting average is the lowest. Combine that with a lack of power (.311 SLG, 11 career home runs), and Schalk was just about worthless with the bat. True, Schalk was considered the top defensive catcher in his time, but his defense could not compensate for his offensive ineptitude enough to make Schalk a worthy Hall of Famer.

If Schalk is in, then why not:

Wally Schang? Schang played in roughly the same time-period as Schalk (1913-1931) and while he never was the best fielder behind the plate, his bat was the best among catchers for a number of years. Of all catchers with more than 3,000 career plate appearances, Schang's .393 on-base percentage is third all time, only behind Mickey Cochrane and Joe Mauer, and Schang had eight seasons with an OBP over .400. A member of three World Championship teams, Schang finished in the top 10 in OBP six times, in Slugging Percentage four times, and in adjusted OPS+ 5 times. His career line (.284/.393/.401) and championship pedigree is superior to Schalk (.253/.340/.316, one world championship), but Schang is still on the outside of the Hall doors.

1B - George Kelly, 1915-1932, elected 1973

Kelly is perhaps the biggest example of getting into the Hall of Fame because of the people he knew rather than his skill on the diamond. Kelly had a few decent seasons in the early 1920s, leading the NL in home runs in 1921 and playing in four straight World Series for the Giants (1921-1924). Kelly was also regarded as a top notch fielder at his position, and surely would have won a few gold gloves had they been in existence during his playing days. But Kelly was not an effective ballplayer past the age of 30, and his career line of .297/.342/.452 was good, but not Hall of Fame caliber. Most of the writers seemed to think Kelly was not worthy of election, as he never got more than five votes on a single ballot. But in 1973, Kelly's old teammates Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry were the heads of the Veterans Committee, and brazenly voted Kelly in to the baseball Hall of Fame. That selection, and others like it (including four other players on this list) caused the baseball Hall of Fame to restructure the Veterans Committee some years later.

If Kelly is in, then why not:

Gil Hodges? Hodges, like Kelly, gained his fame playing in New York (Hodges for the Brooklyn Dodgers, Kelly for the New York Giants). Hodges, however, has more staying power than Kelly, as he was the top first baseman in the National League for nearly a decade. During his career, Hodges slugged 370 home runs and drove in 1,274 runs. Hodges had 10 seasons where he finished in the top 10 in home runs, seven top ten finishes in RBIs, and six top ten finishes in slugging percentage. Not only that, but Hodges was also an excellent fielder, winning the Gold Glove the first three years of its existence, and had the Gold Glove been around earlier, Hodges would have added a few more to his resume. Of all the players that haven't been elected, Hodges has the most votes by the baseball writers' association, and has narrowly missed election in the Hall of Fame a few time by the veterans committee. It's possible that Hodges will be elected soon, but for now, he's the best first baseman outside of the Hall of Fame.

2B - Bill Mazeroski - 1956-1972, Elected 2001

Mazeroski is known mainly for two things, his excellent defense (probably the best of any second baseman in history) and for hitting the game winning home run in game seven of the 1960 World Series. That's all well and good, but it does not make for a Hall of Famer. Mazeroski played 17 years, and failed to put up an OPS+ over 100 (which is basically average production) one time. His on-base percentage of .299 is the lowest of any Hall of Fame position player. Mazeroski may have won eight Gold Gloves and played in nine All-Star games, but I fail to see how a .260 hitter with little power, little base running speed, and who couldn't take a walk is considered a Hall of Famer.


If Mazeroski is in, then why not:

Willie Randolph? Randolph may not have been the same caliber fielder as Mazeroski, but the longtime Yankee was far superior offensively. In roughly the same number of games (Randolph - 2,202, Mazeroski - 2,163). Randolph got more hits (2,210-2,016), more runs (1,239-769), and more walks (1,243-447). Maz had a little more power than Randolph, but Randolph was more of a threat on the basepaths (271 steals). Overall, Randolph's line (.276/.373/.351 104 OPS+) is superior than Mazeroski's (.260/.299/.367 84 OPS+), but while Maz is in, Randolph has little or no chance of getting inducted into Cooperstown.

3B - Freddie Lindstrom - 1924-1936, Inducted 1976

Another selection of the Frankie Frisch led Veteran's Committee, Lindstrom had a few good years for the New York Giants, hitting .379 in 1930 and leading the NL in hits in 1928 with 231, when he was a mere 22 years old. However, his last good season came at the age of 27, and Lindstrom seemingly did not put together enough quality seasons to reach the Hall of Fame. The writers seemed to agree, as Lindstrom never received more than seven votes while on the ballot. But Lindstrom had friends in high places, so in spite of his short career, he got in.

If Lindstrom is in, then why not:

Stan Hack? Other than perhaps Ron Santo, Hack is the best third baseman outside of the Hall of Fame. Hack, the Cubs' leadoff hitter for a number of years, was quite adapt at getting on base, as his .394 career OBP and eight top ten finishes in OBP shows. Hack also led the NL in hits twice (1940-41), had seven season of 100 or more runs scored, and hit over .300 in six seasons. A six time All-Star, Hack played in four World Series with the Cubs, and led the league in stolen bases in 1938 and 1939. Hack's career line of .301/.393/.397 119 OPS+ compares rather favorably with Lindstrom's .311/.351/.459 110 OPS+, and Hack had more quality seasons than Lindstrom, but Lindstrom impressed the right people, so he got in despite Hack being the superior ballplayer.

SS - Travis Jackson, 1922-1936, Inducted 1982

Like Lindstrom and Kelly, Jackson was a New York Giant. Like Lindstrom and Kelly, Jackson's numbers look better than they are because they played in perhaps the highest-scoring era in baseball history. Jackson wasn't a bad ballpayer, but his lack of durability (only 4 seasons with 140+ games played), and his relatively unspectacular resume (although he did have more power than any other shortstop during his time, with four top 10 home run finishes), makes him a weak candidate for the Hall of Fame.

If Jackson is in, then why not:

Bill Dahlen? Dahlen, who also played for the Giants (as well as the Cubs, Braves, and Dodgers) was every bit the defensive player Jackson was, but also more durable and more important to his team offensively. Among shortstops, Dahlen is sixth all-time in both runs and stolen bases, and 12th in hits. Dahlen's 109 OPS+ is seven points better than Jackson's, and Dahlen finished in top ten in home runs, stolen bases, and walks in 5 different seasons. Dahlen also had nine seasons of 30+ steals, once compiled a 42-game hitting streak, and even led the NL in RBI in 1904. But for whatever reason, Dahlen was largely forgotten by voters, garnering only three votes total by the BBWAA.

LF - Chick Hafey - 1924-1937, Inducted 1971

Chick Hafey was one heck of a hitter, even accounting for the era he played in and his poor eyesight. During his career, Hafey won a batting title in 1931 and led the NL in slugging percentage in 1927. Hafey finished in the top 10 in Adjusted OPS+ and slugging percentage five times, and also finished in the top 10 in home runs six times. The problem with Hafey is that he didn't play nearly enough. During his career, Hafey only had eight season where he played more than 100 games, and two where he played more than 140.  Yes, Hafey had five pretty good years, but so did a lot of other guys not in the Hall of Fame.

If Hafey is in, then why not:

Lefty O'Doul? Like Hafey, O'Doul probably didn't play long enough to truly deserve induction into the Hall of Fame, but O'Doul was one heck of a hitter. Even though his career didn't get fully started until he was 31, O'Doul put together one heck of a career. He won two batting titles (1929, 1932) and his .349 career batting average ranks fourth all-time in major league history. O'Doul also finished in the top 10 in batting average, on-base percentage, OPS, and home runs four times apiece. O'Doul's line of .349/.413/.532 143 Adjusted OPS+ is superior to Hafey's .317/.372/.526, 133 Adjusted OPS+ line. One wonders what type of career O'Doul would have had if he hadn't been a pitcher for the first 10 years of it.

CF - Lloyd Waner - 1927-1945, Elected 1967

Waner's brother Paul is also in the Hall of Fame, and he is truly a legit Hall of Famer. But as for Lloyd, I'm not so sure. True, Waner hit .316 for his career and had seven seasons where he finished in the top 10 in batting average. But hitting singles seemed to be Waner's only skill, as he rarely walked, had no power, and like most of his peers during his era, rarely stole bases.  Despite his high average, Waner finished his career with an Adjusted OPS+ of 99, meaning he was one point less than average.

If Waner is in, then why not:

Dom Dimaggio? Like Waner, DiMaggio played in the shadow of his more famous brother Joe. Like Waner, DiMaggio is considered one of the best defensive outfielders of his era, and like Waner, DiMaggio finished in the top ten in his league in hits seven times. But DiMaggio was also the superior offensive player to Waner, as he finished his career with a .383 OBP and a 110 Adjusted OPS+. DiMaggio had six 100 run seasons compared to Waner's three, outslugged Waner (.419-.393) and made seven all-star games during his career. Unilike Waner, Dimaggio's career was relatively short, in part due to WWII, but make no mistake about it, he was every bit the player Waner was, and a little more.

RF - Tommy McCarthy - 1884-1896, elected 1946

With most of the other players I've mentioned, I can see some reason why they were inducted into the Hall of Fame, even though I disagree with those reasons. With McCarthy, I honestly have no idea how he was inducted. Yes, he had a few decent seasons, and led the American Association with 83 steals in 1890. But McCarthy didn't have particularly high career numbers, and his .292/.364/.375 102 Adjusted OPS+ line is nothing to write home about, particularly for a right fielder. But in 1946, McCarthy was selected to the Hall of Fame by the now defunct Old Timers Committee. The only reason I can think of for McCarthy's induction is that he is widely credited with creating the hit-and-run play, but is that enough to make up for his average career numbers?

If McCarthy is in, then why not:

Mike Tiernan? Tiernan, like McCarthy, played his entire career in the 19th century, but a look at the numbers shows that Tiernan was the superior player. During his career, Tiernan led the NL in Slugging percentage one year, and led in OPS and in home runs two years. Tiernan finished in the top ten in slugging and OPS+ seven different years, in homers six years, and in OBP, batting average, and runs scored five different years. Tiernan's line of .311/.392/.463 137 Adjusted OPS+ is much better than McCarthy, and with the exception of stolen bases, Tiernan has better offensive numbers than McCarthy in every single category. Tiernan passed away nearly a century ago, and is largely forgotten today, but the numbers show that he was a superb hitter.

P - Jesse Haines - 1918-1937, Inducted 1970

Once again, the Frankie Frisch led Veteran's Committee let a borderline candidate at best through the doors of immortality. Througout his career, Haines was a pitcher with solid control and who was rather inconsistent. Yes, Haines had 3 20-win seasons, but so did guys like George Uhle, and nobody's calling for his election into the Hall. Haines finished his career with a decent record of 210-158, but his 3.64 career ERA and 109 career ERA+ hardly screams immortality. But because a few people in power liked Haines, he got into the Hall ahead of more deserving candidates.

If Haines is in, then why not:

Dolf Luque? Luque and Haines had similar careers, as both players started late and both men were teammates on the 1918 Cincinnati Reds. Haines may have had the better record, as Luque finished with a 194-179 win-loss mark, but other than that. Luque put together a better career. Luque led the National League in ERA in 1923 and 1925, and also led the league in wins and shutouts in 1923. Luque finished in the top ten in both ERA and WHIP six times, compared to three times and one time, respectively, for Haines. Luque also had the better career ERA (3.24), ERA+ (118), and better WHIP (1.29 to Haines' 1.35) than his contemporary. But while Luque isn't in the baseball Hall of Fame, he can at least claim that he's in the Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame, as Luque was one of the few Cubans permitted to play during his era due to his light skin.

Manager - Wilbert Robinson - 1902, 1914-1931, Inducted 1945

Robinson is best known for managing the Brooklyn Dodgers for 18 years beginning in 1914. During his tenure with Brooklyn, the team won 2 NL Pennants, but also had 10 losing seasons, and Robinson's .506 career winning percentage with the Dodgers doesn't really seem deserving of being selected to the Hall of Fame. I mean, he didn't even win a World Series as a manager.

If Robinson is in, then why not:

Ralph Houk? Houk managed 20 seasons to Robinson's 19, but had two less losing seasons and a winning percentage 17 points higher than Robinson's (.517 to .500). Not only that, Houk managed two World Series winning teams (1961 and 1962 Yankees). Houk was cited as an influence by many other managers, including Tommy Lasorda, who called Houk the best leader of men that he ever played for. Houk was also no stranger to adversity, as during his watch both the moribound Tigers and rebuilding Red Sox became respectable teams. It's unlikely that Houk, who passed away this July, will ever be elected into Cooperstown, but he is just as deserving, if not more so, than Robinson.

Executive - Morgan Bulkeley, Inducted 1937

Bulkeley, the former governor of Connecticut, was the first president of the National League when it started in 1876. However, Bulkeley only served one year as president, and it seems as if he was a figurehead president as his eventual successor William Hulbert was really running the show. So even though he may of been the first NL president, it's hard to see what he did, if anything, to justify his selection into baseball's hall of fame.

If Bulkeley is in, then why not:

Marvin Miller? Unlike Bulkeley, it's not hard to spot the impact Miller has had on baseball. As the head of the players' union from 1966-1982, Miller and the union put an end to the reverse clause, and both arbitration and free agency started in baseball due to Miller's efforts. The new policies negotiated by Miller not only changed baseball, but other professional sports as well. Despite endorsements from such legendary players like Hank Aaron and Joe Morgan, Miller once again fell short of election this year, finishing one vote short in yesterday's voting. The fact that Miller is on the outside of the Hall while Bulkeley is in after doing nothing of impact in baseball is a travesty, and it should have been rectified long ago.

Well, thanks for reading. I hope it wasn't too long to read. If you happen to agree or disagree with my selections, than feel free to express your opinions on this topic. If you have any comments on this post, or ideas for future posts, than send me them either by leaving a comment or by e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame's Worst of the Best: The Worst Hall of Famers by Position

Last weekend, the Pro Football Hall of Fame inducted their newest members into the Hall. Which got me thinking a little bit about which players would be considered the worst of the best, the lowest of the elite, the players that make you wonder how he got in and another similar player is on the outside looking in. Well, a week later, I finally decided to get around to it and list who I think are the worst Hall of Famers by position. Were all of these men good football players? Sure, but nevertheless, their inductions range from questionable to downright dumbfounding. So, without further adieu, here are the most mortal of the immortals, the worst Pro Football Hall of Famers by position, as well as players on the outside looking in who perhaps should be in instead.

Quarterback: Joe Namath, 1965-1977, Inducted 1985

Namath is best known for leading his New York Jets to victory in Super Bowl III after guaranteeing a win against the heavily favored Baltimore Colts. While that is one of the greatest moments in NFL history, it shouldn't be enough to get into the Hall. Looking at Namath's numbers, one wonders just how a quarterback with his numbers could get in. Namath threw more interceptions than touchdowns (220-173) and only threw more touchdown than interceptions in two of his thirteen seasons. His completion percentage (50.1) and quarterback rating (65.5) are downright pedestrian. Namath defenders will say that it was a different game, and those statistics were low for all quarterbacks. Well, maybe so, but over the course of Namath's career (65-77), Namath ranks 33rd in completion percentage and 28th in quarterback rating amongst quarterbacks with over 1000 attempts. Namath ranks behind such legends as Randy Johnson, Bill Munson, and Bob Berry. Bottom line, Namath got in thanks more to the perception that he was a great quarterback rather than reality.

If Namath is in, then why not:

Kenny Stabler? Stabler and Namath are similar in many aspects. Both men led their teams to a Super Bowl win (Stabler in Super Bowl XI). Both men won MVP awards (Namath in 1968, Stabler in 1974). Both men threw more interceptions than touchdowns (222 INTs, 194 TDs for Stabler). Both men quarterbacked at the University of Alabama under Bear Bryant and both men had reputations for scoring both on and off the field. However, Stabler had the better numbers, as he completed 59.8 percent of his passes and finished his career with a quarterback rating of 75.3. While Namath finished his career with a losing record in games he started, Stabler put together a record of 96-49-1 as a starter. Yes Stabler had better teams around him, but Stabler deserves some credit, as he lead his teams on 26 game winning drives late in the game (Namath had 16, btw). Yet after all these years, Stabler is still on the outside looking in.

Running Back: Paul Hornung, 1957-62, 1964-66, Inducted 1986

Hornung is remember as being a key member of the Vince Lombardi era Green Bay Packers of the 1960s, and acquired the nickname 'The Golden Boy' due to his accomplishments at Notre Dame and with the Packers. However, while Hornung was considered a threat to score whenever he handled the ball and not only played running back, but also served as the placekicker for a few years, he seemed to be a jack of all trades but a master of none. In his nine years with the team, Hornung only received 100 or more touches in only four seasons. He never gained more than 1000 yards from scrimmage in a season, and was named to only two Pro Bowl teams in his career. Yes Hornung has 62 career touchdowns and led the NFL in scoring three straight seasons (1959-61). But I have a hard time putting somebody in the Hall of Fame when he was only the second best running back on his team (Jim Taylor got most of the carries for the Packers, btw).

If Hornung is in, then why not:

Timmy Brown? Brown played for three different teams, primarily for the Philadelphia Eagles, from 1959-1968. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever made an argument that Timmy Brown should be in the Hall of Fame. But Brown, drafted in the 27th round in 1959 by the Packers, was actually quite a similar player to Hornung. A three time Pro Bowler, Brown finished his career with more touchdowns than Hornung (64 to 62), more rushing yards (3,862 to 3,711 in nearly the same amount of carries), more receptions (235 to 130) and more yards from scrimmage (7,261 to 5,191). While Hornung helped his club on special teams by kicking field goals, Brown was a special teams maven in his own right, returning five kickoffs and a punt for a touchdown. In 1963, Brown set a record (since broken) by gaining 2,425 all-purpose yards. Yet since Brown toiled away for a mediocre Philadelphia Eagles team, he is hardly remembered today, while Hornung is due to his time with the Packers. I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Wide Receiver: Lynn Swann, 1974-82, Inducted 2001

There may not be a more controversial selection to the Pro Football Hall of Fame than that of Lynn Swann. Swann's induction seems primarily based on his reputation of making spectacular catches, such as the catches he made in Super Bowl X in winning the Super Bowl MVP. Swann's detractors say that his stats weren't that of an elite receiver (336 career catches, no seasons with 1,000 or more receiving yards) and that Swann was nothing more than a beneficiary of playing for such a great team in the Pittsburgh Steelers. Swann's defenders would have you believe that his stats are so low only because the Steelers were a running team first, and only used Swann when a big play was needed. Personally, I feel Swann was a good player but he wasn't even the best wide receiver on his team (John Stallworth, also a Hall of Famer), so, like Hornung, I have a hard time accepting that Swann is a Hall of Famer.

If Swann is in, then why not:

Cliff Branch? During Swann's career, Branch had more catches (413 to 336), more yards (7,257 to 5,462) and more touchdown receptions (59 to 51). Branch was a four-time Pro Bowler and three times was a first team All-Pro, compared to Swann's three Pro Bowls and one All-Pro selection. Branch had 2 seasons of over 1,000 yards receiving, Swann had none. Branch led the NFL in receiving yards in 1974, and in touchdowns in 1974 and 1976. Swann led the NFL in touchdowns only once, in 1975. Swann was a member of four Super Bowl winning teams, but Branch was a member of three such teams himself. Of the two, I'd say Branch had the better career, but since Swann had a big performance on a big stage and was more outgoing than Branch, he's the one in the Hall of Fame.

Offensive Lineman: Bob St. Clair, 1953-1963, Inducted 1990

I'll be honest, this was the hardest position to find a 'worst' for. St. Clair was a very good player for a number of years with the San Francisco 49ers, making five Pro Bowls and allegedly blocking 10 kicks during the 1956 season. The 6'9" St. Clair was a towering presence over his opponents and blocked for fellow Hall of Famers Y.A. Tittle, Joe Perry, Hugh McElhenny and John Henry Johnson. But somebody's got to be here, and St. Clair's lack of a single consensus All-Pro selection puts him on the list.

If St. Clair is in, then why not:

Jerry Kramer? In 1969, the NFL named Kramer one of the two guards on it's all 50th Anniversary Team. Of the players named on that team, Kramer is the only one not to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Not only was Kramer a key player on the Green Bay Packers' dynasty of the 1960s, the five time All-Pro also served as a placekicker for a couple of seasons for the team, and he threw perhaps the most famous block in the history of the NFL that allowed Bart Starr to score the winning touchdown in the Ice Bowl. The only reason that I can think of as to why the Hall has yet to induct Kramer is that 10 of his Packers teammates are already in, and one more may be too much. To that I say hogwash. After all, Lynn Swann was inducted even though he had 10 or so teammates in the Hall already, and not to belabor the point, but Kramer was a much better player at his position than Swann was.

Defensive Lineman: Dan Hampton, 1979-1990, Inducted 2002

Hampton was a big part of the Super Bowl Champion 1985 Chicago Bears and was named to four Pro Bowl teams during his 12 year career. But for a supposedly dominant defensive lineman, Hampton seems to fall a little short of his reputation. Yes, he was named to four Pro Bowls and 1 consensus All-Pro team, but men such as Bob Baumhower, Fred Smealers, and Joe Klecko, and those guys aren't going to be in the Hall anytime soon. Was Hampton a great player, yes, but there are better lineman than him that are not in the Hall of Fame.

If Hampton is in, then why not:

Richard Dent? It was Dent and not Dan Hampton that was the most destructive force on the legendary Bears defense of the 1980s. Dent is sixth all time in sacks with 137.5, and like Hampton, Dent played in four Pro Bowl and was named an NFL All-Pro once. For years, Dent has been a Hall of Fame finalist, but every year Dent is passed over in favor of lesser candidates such as Fred Dean, Derrick Thomas and Andre Tippett. Eventually, you have to figure that the MVP of Super Bowl XX will join Hampton in the Hall, but until that day comes, we are left to wonder just why Dent has been passed over again and again.

Linebacker: Andre Tippett, 1982-1988, 1990-93, Inducted 2008

During a four year stretch for 1984-1987, Tippett was the best outside linebacker in the NFL not named Lawrence Taylor.  In those four seasons, Tippett recorded 57 sacks and was named to the other Pro Bowl after each of those seasons. In his other seven seasons, Tippett was a decent linebacker, but hardly a gamechanger. Yes, Tippett had a spectacular four year run, but so did DE Mark Gastineau and OLB Pat Swilling, and neither one of those players have been mentioned for Hall of Fame consideration.

If Tippett is in, then why not:

Kevin Greene? Greene, like Tippett, was a tremendous pass rusher from the Outside Linebacker position. Greene, like Tippett, played in five Pro Bowls and was named to two All-Pro teams. Unlike Tippett, Greene was more consistent, putting up 10 seasons with 10 or more sacks. Greene's 160 sacks is the third most in NFL history, and yet he has not even been on the final ballot in his five years of eligibility. Tippett did not get in until his ninth year of eligibility, so maybe there's hope for Greene just yet.


Defensive Back: Dick Lebeau, 1959-1972, Inducted 2010

Lebeau is the most recent induction on the list, and his 62 interceptions give him a strong case for his induction. However, there are a couple of factors to consider. One, Lebeau played nearly his entire career opposite Dick "Night Train" Lane and Lem Barney, two Hall of Fame cornerbacks in their own right. Therefore, Lebeau had a chance to pick more passes off because quarterbacks would rather throw at him than his teammate. Two, Lebeau only made three Pro Bowl, and never was selected a consensus All-Pro. Third, Lebeau gained momentum for his induction largely due to his role as the defensive coordinator of the Pittsburgh Steelers and as the innovator of the zone blitz, which is all well and good but should not be considered into inducting Lebeau the player. I'm happy that Lebeau was inducted after such a long wait, but one must wonder if he would have been inducted if not for his second career.

If Lebeau is in, then why not:

Johnny Robinson? Robinson, a 12-year pro for the Kansas City Chiefs from 1960-1971, was a Hall of Fame finalist six times during the 1980s, but is no longer on the ballot and now must be considered by the Veteran's Committee. He should be. Robinson played in seven Pro Bowls, and was named to the first team AFL and NFL teams six times during his career. Robinson finished his career with 57 interceptions, twice had 10 interceptions in a season, and was named to the NFL's All Decade team of the 1960s.  Robinson is probably the greatest defensive back in the history of the AFL, and deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame.

Head Coach: Bud Grant, 1967-1983, 1985, Inducted 1994 

Grant coached the Minnesota Vikings for his entire NFL head coaching career, leading them to 12 playoff appearances, 11 division titles, and four Super Bowl appearances during his tenure in Minnesota. However, Grant failed to win a Super Bowl and even one of his team's appearances, and often the games were over by the end of the first half. Yes, the Vikings had a remarkable run, but it seems that a team as talented as they were would at least win one Super Bowl.

If Grant is in, then why not:

Dan Reeves. Like Grant, Reeves took a team to the Super Bowl four times, including three trips in four years. Like Grant, Reeves never coached a team to a Super Bowl victory and often the games were over by halftime. Unlike Grant, Reeves didn't coach teams exactly bursting with talent. Yes, his Broncos teams of the 1980s had John Elway at quarterback, but the rest of the team was primarily league-average talent at best, with a few solid players such as Karl Mecklenberg and Dennis Smith thrown in there. Reeves also led the 1998 Falcons to a 14-2 record and a NFC Title, and I doubt that any non-Falcon fan today could name more than five starters from that team. Yes, Grant has the better record, (158-96-5 to 190-165-2), but Reeves has the better playoff record (11-9 to 10-12) and was able to do more with less than most coaches to ever coach in the game.

Well, that's it, the worst Pro Football Hall of Famers by position. To be fair, all of the men mentioned were fine players, and I'm not asking that they be voted out of the Hall of Fame or anything drastic like that. It's just that there's got to be a player that just barely meets the specifications of what a Hall of Famer should be, and I was just interested in discussing just who that is. If you happen to agree or disagree with my selections, than feel free to express your opinions on this topic. If you have any comments on this post, or ideas for future posts, than send me them either by leaving a comment or by e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.