Whitaker is worthy. From Bleacher Report, “Only Barry Bonds (162.8), Alex Rodriguez (117.6), Pete Rose (79.6) and Dead-Ball Era shortstop Bill Dahlen (75.2) have more career WAR than Lou Whitaker (75.1) among position players who have been retired long enough and are not inducted in the Hall of Fame.” Sweet Lou, he should be voted in by the Veterans just as Trammell and Morris were. The late 70s Tigers farm system was outstanding. Trammell, Whitaker, Morris, Lance Parrish, Kirk Gibson and Dan Petry.

Add in the fact that the voters cannot vote for more than 10 players. They can vote for fewer, and many do, but not more than ten.

You will be a bust,
be a bust, be a bust
In the Hall of Fame!

Well Steve, now you have done it!

My problem with the HOF is that everything is politically motivated, and the majority of sportswriters casting votes are NE Liberals. Case in point: Derek Jeter, all time first round position player entrant; Craig Biggio, with basically identical career stats, third round ballot entrant.

The single biggest determinant of HOF success is whether you played for the Yankees, followed by Media kiss ass ability. And I would love to see that fixed.

Around 40 years ago I got a book by Bill James.
In the book he uses analytics to predict the probability of certain players making the Hall of Fame in the future, and which would be first ballot.

Most of his predictions were correct.

His biggest miss was his almost 100% prediction that Pete Rose would be a first ballot inductee.

Willie Randoloh, lifetime. 276 hitter with 54 HRs and 687 RBIs and arguably the worst mgr in Mets history. Not a hall of famer. Not by a long shot.

Whitaker is another lifetime 276 hitter, not a hall of famer.

Reuschel was a very good pitcher with 214 wins and a respectable 3.37 lifetime era and he was an innings eater who’d look like a superstar in today’s game. I’d let him and Hernandez in, but I can see the argument against both. Schilling, by stats, looks just like Reuschel, 216 wins with a lifetime 3.46 era. Right there, and a lot of people think 200 wins should get you in, but, again, you can make an argument against. Not letting Pete Rose in, especially now with MLB in bed with gambling, is ridiculous.

Around 40 years ago I got a book by Bill James.
In the book he uses analytics to predict the probability of certain players making the Hall of Fame in the future, and which would be first ballot.

Most of his predictions were correct.

With the rise of analytics in the Baseball world, James’ predictions are more like a Heisenberg Principle prediction than a prediction prediction, iykwim.

“You can see the problem”

You’re only seeing part of it.

“Curt Schilling (10 years and he didn’t get in because of blatant political prejudice against him), ”

Ahhh, now we are getting somewhere. Perhaps it’s not just the process, but also the individuals who are given the vote. Perhaps qualifications, including, ethnic and racial breakdown of all the voters is in order? It’s pretty silly to suggest that Schilling is the ONLY player to be snubbed (or alternatively, honored) because of biases that the voters possess.

“In general, though, I don’t see much of a pattern in these superb first round rejects. They mostly failed to get a Narrative in their favor, but I can easily imagine alternative timelines in which these players become hugely famous”

That’s because you’re not even considering the voters themselves, their favorites, and the agreements arrived at between them prior to voting.

“(leaving out 19th Century players, and gambling or PEDs scandal players like Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds)”

Steve, are amphetamines considered performance enhancing? Anabolic steroids were no secret in the 1970’s and several MLB players have said amphetamine and steroid use in the 70’s was common.

“Second basemen need to be wiry guys to turn the double play,”

And here we go. Much like the “law of female journalism” any discussion of baseball or pro sports in general eventually turns into a recap of all of Steve’s pet theories presented as fact and pet players presented as the greatest ever.

“Mr. October prevailed in both World Series” Ding!*

“George Steinbrenner, manager Billy Martin, and catcher Thurman Munson provided a crucial life lesson to Donald Trump that there’s no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell your name right.” Ding!

“I can remember that when I was driving to a Rolling Stones concert …” Ding!

“Weirdly, Willie Davis, the Dodgers centerfielder who helped put Koufax,” Ding!

“This is in contrast to when second string catcher Norm Sherry suggested to erratic pitcher Sandy Koufax” Ding!

“But when Koufax asked how, the Dodgers’ Jewish braintrust was momentarily stumped. ” Ding ding ding ding!!!!

*It’s more than reasonable to speculate that Reggie Jackson was using steroids for much of his career. And Pete Rose would be in the HOF if he were black.

If memory serves, Willie Davis achieved a form of immortality as the first Mets player to win a vote for one of 2 big post-season awards – MVP/Cy Young.

Never mind, that was Tommy Davis, and he wasn’t the first either – that was Ron Hunt.

I can sympathize: like Lou Brock, I could never figure out where a flyball was going to go either.

I had a very good such sense. I knew exactly where the ball was going to land, but often wasn’t fast enough to take advantage of it, nor had the arm to get it back to the infield quickly enough. Some gifts are frustrating if you don’t have the complementary ones needed to make them useful. There is no DH for that.

Willie Randolph was very good, a key part of team that won four pennants. But he was never more than the fifth or sixth best Yankee on the field, so Hall of Fame worthy I don’t think so. Did Nettles get any votes? He was better. I think Randolph was hurt in one World Series and his back-up Brian Doyle improbably was the Series MVP, but I may be mistaken.

It is amazing how many Baseball Hall of Fame discussion just come down to average players who played on the Yankees when the Yankees were good. I suspect the diversification of the media market means that there will be fewer New York centric issues in the future.

Good solution, now how do you propose getting around the problem of people wanting to implement your ideas without admitting they all read your stuff, when they also want to accuse each other of reading your stuff to destroy each other’s careers?

Nettles topped out at 8.3% of the vote and fell off the ballot after his 4th year.

In little league, they put the daydreamers who couldn’t keep their finger out of their nose in right field. That’s how I remember it.

If curt schilling was a black guy who crusaded for climate change he would have made it first ballot. Legend.

I know of one person who has a Hall of Fame ballot and he has not cared about nor followed the sport of baseball for years. He said so on his radio show where they cover the Houston Texans 365 days a year. (366 in 2024.) I suppose if the Astros are in the world series he might watch a little of that.

Reggie Smith is more deserving than many members but the Hall itself really does not miss him.

If Willie Davis had been allowed to appear on the Hall of Fame ballot, he likely would have been the 12th one-and-done.

My recollection from talking-baseball with other seventh graders is that Dodger centerfielder Willie “Three Dog” was quite popular and a good hitter. Just looked up his lifetime average, .279. Him and right-fielder Tommie Davis were playground favorites, and Tommie Davis was a hitting coach for many years in the upscale La Canada-Flintridge neighborhood where wealthy parents could pay for their sons to improve for their club teams. Years later, I learned that Willie Davis had a drug/drinking problem.

I do recall asking my father, who was a D1 baseball player and again in the U.S. military, why he didn’t like Willie Davis and groaned when he would come to bat in late-innings. He replied that Willie D. couldn’t ‘get the bat off his shoulder, and couldn’t hit in the clutch.’ Ouch! I couldn’t argue, but still thought Willie Davis was cool. Dodgers traded him to expansion team Expos and obtained their next centerfielder Jim Wynn from Houston Astros.

In 1996, Willie Davis was high/drunk and threatened his parents with a samurai sword and was arrested. When I shared this story with my father, Dad replied, ‘see? He just can’t swing it in the clutch!’

In the major leagues, the right fielder has the best throwing arm since the throws are further. The pros can also hit to all fields.

A site called Hall of Fame Tracker keeps track of all the 2024 HOF ballots that have been made public so far. There are 150 of them out in the open now, or about 42% of the expected total. It’s a surprise but five guys would make the HOF based on the results so far: Adrian Beltre (first ballot lock with 98.8%), Joe Mauer (mildly surprising first ballot winner with 83.8%), Todd Helton (finally overcoming the Coors Curse with 83.1%), Billy Wagner (should have been in a while ago and will probably make it with 79.4%), and Gary Sheffield (right on the line with 75.0%).

Would be wild if the writers put in five guys. With choices from the old timers committee and whoever else gets to install guys, that would be a crowded podium.

It is not a real Hall of Fame without Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Who cares?

Or how Willie Randolph stabilized a great Yankees team that otherwise would fallen apart due to its contentious personalities

I’m curious where you get the idea that tension in the locker room is a bad thing. The early 90s Bulls hated each other, hated Jerry Krause and got into brawls. And all they did was win.

I remember a story written by a little league softball coach from Florida, IIRC.

The coach had a future star basketball player on his team, a Miss Griffey. She was by far the most athletic girl on the team so he put her at SS.

One day her father had a day off and went to practice. He father, “Junior “, was really upset seeing his daughter in the infield. So she played OF the rest of the time there.

Seriously, at the older age groups it’s truly amazing how many of the outfielders in both baseball and softball had originally been infielders in Little League, but someone realized they were fast and had a strong throwing arm.

If you put Reggie in, Paul O’Neil has to go in. .288 BA, 285 HRs, 2105 hits. Smith .287 BA, 314 HRs, 2020 hits. Almost the same player, number wise. And there’s a bunch of guys with those kind of numbers. Very good players, but not quite there. Unless you want the baseball HOF to look like the NFL HOF.

Granted, these 11 who got booted out on the first ballot aren’t the most storied players in baseball history, but they are really good.”

Ah, yes, the Hall of Very Good, Sorta, Kinda, and so let’s just vote him in, because, he was pretty good after all. It only took about 30-50 yrs to “revise” different stats and in the Sabermetrics era, it affords us more of an ethical authority (as well as an elitist attitude) to be able to say, a la, “You dopes from the sticks couldn’t ever figure out the great ones, the ones who should be HOFers! Ya’ll don’t understand…the REAL HOFers are Grich, Randolph, and Reushel! Everybody in the know understands that their WARs were off the charts–they’re great! C’mon! Everyone knows it. Everyone (who matters) understands and has noticed that they should’ve been in the HOF decades ago!

Question: Did Reushel have 300 W’s in his career? Or 3,500 SO’s? Did Reggie Smith have 500 HR’s? Or 1,600 RBIs?

Answer: Those trad stats are soooo boring and lame. They’re not sexy. And they’re definitely not the key way to measure an individual player’s all around greatness.

Get the memo, people. Read it, absorb it, and digest the contents. Grich. Reushel. Smith. Randolph. THESE players are where its at.

And once we Sabermetricians take over the voting (or continue to “persuade” the writers who cast the votes every year) then you WILL see these players finally enshrined in the HOF.

After all, when fans think of the greatest ever to play the game, “everyone” automatically thinks of Bobby Grich. It’s just that simple. Everyone. Forget that guy Hornsby–that Texan hick! What’d he ever do for MLB?

Grich, people, Grich. He’s the future for the HOF.

Seriously. Is Grich THAT guy?

Period.

Curt Schilling had a lot of post-season success, which is a factor. Everyone knows why he’s not in.

at the older age groups it’s truly amazing how many of the outfielders in both baseball and softball had originally been infielders in Little League

This is a variation of the Black Catcher Problem. When the Negro Leagues were a thing, every team needed a catcher, therefore you had black catchers. Now, you don’t need them anymore. In Little League everyone must play at least two innings in the field per game, therefore you hide your worst players there. Once you graduate from Little League, those players no longer play at all, especially since you are now on a 90-foot diamond (Little League is 60). Therefore, those strong infield arms from Little League are put to good use in the outfield at higher levels. Also, not everyone can play shortstop at the same time.

To be fair to Cooperstown, they’ve done a pretty good job in recent years of weeding out voters who don’t cover baseball any more and don’t really have any connection to the sport. That’s why the number of voters has dropped below 400. It used to be well over 500.

The biggest change I would make to the voting is mandatory disclosure of everybody’s ballots after the announcement of the winners. That would probably weed out a lot more people who are even more clueless than the usual mediots.

The Curt Schilling case is just a ridiculous example of political bias. And nobody even tries to hide it. Among other things, Schilling called ESPN doofuses like Stephen Smith and Jemele Hill racists. That’s obviously true but a white guy can’t say things like that and expect an invite to Cooperstown.

Odd note: Stephen Smith later got in trouble for yelping about Shohei Ohtani not speaking English. Smith doesn’t speak English either, but we’ll leave that aside. Anyway, a lot of people piled on Smith because no white guys were involved in that controversy. That made it safe to criticize Smith, who’s always been racist and proud of it.

Rick Reuschel… Willie Randolph… David Cone

Reuschel started one All-Star Game, the 1989 game in Anaheim for the National League. His Giants were in first place at the time, which is a point in favor of Steve’s theory that his being overlooked was a function of him pitching for bad teams. Anyway that 1989 game featured former president Reagan in the NBC booth with Vin Scully, so there was a big audience that got to see Reuschel give up back-to-back home runs to Bo Jackson and Wade Boggs leading off the bottom of the first.

As for Randolph, nglaer correctly pointed out that he got hurt the last Friday of the season in 1978 and missed all of the postseason, with his replacement Brian Doyle going 7-for-16 in the World Series to win MVP. I would argue that Reggie Jackson going 9-for-23 with 2 HR and 3 walks was a better offensive performance, but Doyle coming out of obscurity got him the award.

As a Yankee fan I would argue that Randolph was solid but he wasn’t great. 1978 is an interesting piece of trivia but that’s not the reason why he didn’t get in.

I don’t know why David Cone isn’t in. Maybe it’s because he didn’t have 200 wins. Maybe it’s because he was only great about 5 seasons and was slightly-above mediocre the rest of them. His best season was probably 1994 with the Royals, but the strike has caused that season to be memory-holed. Maybe it’s because he exposed himself to the fans in the Mets’ bullpen and the writers haven’t forgiven him for it.

Maybe instead of the current voting system the sportswriters should caucus

the most famous bad trade in baseball history.

This in itself is an injustice. Robinson/Pappas should be the one, and it included the best stupid G.M. quote.

So who’s the best fat ’70s Chicago pitcher – Reuschel or Wilbur Wood?

Reuschel’s nickname – The Fat Boy – seems to be somewhat of a carryover from pre-legalist America, when free speech was the dominant ethos of the land. Players up through the ’60s, and to a slightly lesser extent the ’70s could bear all sorts of uncomplimentary nicknames that would never fly now. Or maybe it was just Chicago. I remember an item in the Sun-Times circa 1980, in which Jimmy Piersall (who was paired with Harry Caray in the Sox booth at the time) was complaining about the umpiring team that was coming in for the next series, and how one of the umps (I want to say Bill Kunkel) was always jobbing the Sox. The Sun Times was on it, and one of the sportswriters met Kunkel at the hotel to ask him about Piersall’s comments. Kunkel replied, “I just get into town, and I have to take flak from Nutso”.

The Baseball Hall of Fame – yeah, that’s where balloting really needs to be fixed.

Or is that “fixed?”

It always bugged me that Tommy John was not in the HOF. His name recognition rivals Babe Ruth. A player with elite stats and having the most consequential surgery for extending careers of 1000s of pitchers named after him and he’s not in the HOF. Go figure.

What would be a few examples of strategies for “building a narrative” in your HOF favor? Say a young player comes to you for advice Steve. What do you tell him that he can consciously do? Not everyone can have a Pee Wee Reese narrative (instrumental in furthering the acceptance of Jackie Robinson into organized baseball; that’ll do; that’s even on his HOF plaque) “Start a foundation” and “visit the burn ward” are already taken.

Tim Lincecum had an excellent narrative. As you probably know, he had two consecutive fantastic seasons, and then a mediocre, short career. They burned-out this likable, mesmerizing guy with more innings than he could handle due to his style which resembled Guidry and Koufax. He was great fun to watch, filled the stadium seats, so they burned him out. Tim’s narrative legacy is that due to his fate managers and pitching coaches took seriously counting pitches, so they would not destroy their pitchers. (Despite the mediocre nature of the rest of his career he probably would have gotten into the Hall of Fame if he had made the cutoff of 2000 innings, but he managed only 1700.)

Jim Leyland was already elected by the Contemporary Baseball [non-players] Committee, which handles managers, executives, and umpires

The Yankees thing doesn’t always work. I’m no Yankees fan but Thurman Munson was the essence of a Hall of Famer. Very good numbers, tough, durable, great defensive catcher – the Captain.

It’s always “Mr. October” and “the straw that stirs the drink” but if the Yankees didn’t win the World Series before Jackson, they also didn’t win after Munson.

As for Randolph, nglaer correctly pointed out that he got hurt the last Friday of the season in 1978 and missed all of the postseason, with his replacement Brian Doyle going 7-for-16 in the World Series to win MVP. I would argue that Reggie Jackson going 9-for-23 with 2 HR and 3 walks was a better offensive performance, but Doyle coming out of obscurity got him the award.

Bucky Dent was 1978 WS MVP.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/history/awards/_/id/68

Eliminate baseball writers from being gatekeepers to the MLB Hall-of-Fame. Most of them are biased against certain players like Curt Schilling. If not for his oustanding career, Steve Carlton would not be in the Hall because he loathed most sports journalists. Sports writers today are committed leftists who hate excellence and those who don’t share their politics.

All those words and no mention of the coverboy of missed HOF expectations: Steve Garvey.

Garvey was the face of the Dodgers and the National League for a decade. The “experts” give all the arguments why Garvey falls short. Yet Garvey was Mr. Baseball in the 1970s. He wasn’t overrated at that time. He was just very good and helped his team win championships.

I view the HOF voting the same as presidential politics. It’s a gimmick. Pundits argue and this creates “news”. There are winners and losers and the cycle repeats over and over.

And unlike POTUS, no one actually cares who is elected to sports Hall of Fames. After the announcement and celebration, what people remember are the players who created memories.

For me, that would be Garvey & Nettles along with Brett & Schmidt and Reggie and Gossage. All members of my baseball museum.

Ron Santo had to die before being elected to MLB HOF. Santo did not play as many years as Ripken but his stats are comparable when you take that into consideration.

In football, Ken Stabler had to die as well before FINALLY being inducted into the NFL HOF. Joe Namath barely completes 50% of his passes and has no trouble being inducted. Stabler over Namath, no question.

And how in the hell is Ray Mancini in the boxing HOF and Marvin Johnson isn’t??

And the rock & roll HOF is laughable.

My bad. Doyle came in second and got the SI cover, but indeed Dent got the award, probably more for what happened at Fenway Park on October 2 than for what happened in the World Series per se.

Willie Davis … never even appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot

This is amazing to me, but there were three factors working against him. First, he only made the All-Star team twice, so at the time he wasn’t seen as an excellent player. In comparison, Brock made it six times. Second, he only received MVP votes 4 times, with his top finish being 16th in his two all-star seasons. Brock received MVP votes 10 times, and finished 2nd to Steve Garvey in 1974.

Finally, Davis spent two years in Japan at the end of his career after playing for the San Diego Padres in 1976. This should have placed him on the ballot in 1982 with Tommy Davis et al. But he decided to play for the California Angels in 1979 where he got 61 plate appearances over 43 games. This delayed him until 1985, where he was snubbed from consideration in favor of Ed Kranepool, George Scott, Bobby Tolan, and Roy White, all of whom received no votes. Andy Messersmith received three votes, but he (and Tommy John) should be in for higher reasons than on-the-field performance.

Perhaps he was literally forgotten about because of the Japan factor.

Of course. The big leagues aren’t like little league. They don’t just give the fat kid the catcher’s mitt, either.

Guys who could hit to all fields used to be stars. These days it’s all about pulling the ball with power.

Munson’s death while flying his own Cessna is vivid childhood memory. Not exactly the Day the Music Died, but one of the great sports tragedies of that era.

The biggest change I would make to the voting is mandatory disclosure of everybody’s ballots after the announcement of the winners.

Rightly or wrongly, this would discourage independent thought in voting. As it stands, one person didn’t vote for Derek Jeter and three people didn’t vote for Ken Griffey, but because of the secret ballot those three (or four) voters were able to vote their conscience. With a public ballot, a lot of the top vote getters will become unanimous inductees like Mariano Rivera.

Dwight Evans is the prime example of a very good, but not great player.

Luis Tiant on the other hand should be in the Hall of Fame.

I’d probably vote for Brock over Davis for the Hall of Fame

So would anyone else with at least half a brain. What the WAR people don’t advertise is that they make an arbitrary adjustment to the final number strictly based on what position someone plays. Therefore, based on equal statistics, a centerfielder is going to have a higher WAR than a left fielder. However, this makes no sense because the theoretical replacement player you are comparing against also plays a position. So an MLB centerfielder should be compared against a replacement-level centerfielder defensively, while the MLB leftfielder should be compared against a replacement-level leftfielder.

The primary value of WAR is to compare across eras, e.g. Pete Rose vs Barry Bonds vs Ted Williams in left field*. It is not to compare players in the same era; that’s why you have traditional statistics.

Rickey Henderson’s first year with the Yankees was 1985; his dWAR was 1.5. His last full-year with the Yankees was 1988; his dWAR was -0.1. The difference? In 1985 he played center and in 1988 he played left. That’s it! Dave Winfield won 7 Gold Gloves yet his career dWAR is -22.7, simply because the Yankees played in him in right to take advantage of his arm. Dave Parker also has a lifetime negative dWAR of -14.8.

*

Why isn’t Carl Mays in the Hall?
And how many Roman Catholics are Sportswriters and what % of Catholics end up in the HOF?

Haven’t researched it, but Garvey must be the only player not in the Hall with six seasons of at least 200 hits. Did he openly support Reagan? That would have triggered the writers.

I have a sportswriter friend (no, really!) with an HOF ballot. We’re good pals, will catch a game together from time to time; we don’t talk politics, though- he’s an illustration that a typical daily paper sportswriter makes a typical daily paper reporter look like Pat Buchanan.

He told me flat out he left Schilling off his ballot for political reasons.

I enjoy these posts; they take my mind off our increasingly difunctional society. And, whether someone like Willie Randolph is a Hall of Famer or not, the discussion brings back memories of watching good ball players; Randolph, Mickey “The Chancellor” Rivers, Larry Hisle, Earl Battey, … and a host of others guys I’ve described before as being in the “Kent Hrbek Hall of Fame* good players, but not necessarily HOFers, who were important contributors to successful teams.

* Funny sign in Atlanta during the 1991 World Series: “ Hey Hrbek, go buy a vowel!”

Jim Rice was finally inducted into the HOF in his last year of eligibility. When I think of MLB sluggers of the 1970’s, I think of Rice, Schmidt, Jackson, etc.

Regarding Rick Reuschel, my Cubbie-fan friend fondly relates an interview where the reporter was trying to good-naturedly ask what it’s like to be an ace pitcher but rather portly and dumpy-looking. Rather than serve up a good-natured response (“Yes Frank, I hope to be an inspiration for fat slobs everywhere”) the glaring hurler icily acted baffled by the very premise of the question — despite famously being nicknamed The Whale.

This recalls my favorite scene in Richard Ford’s The Sportswriter, where the guy goes for a feature interview with a former star linebacker who’s now a paraplegic. Rather than serve up the usual cliches (“Yes Frank, I feel truly blessed and embrace each new day with the hope of inspiring others”) the crippled ex-player is angry and bitter — “How do you fucking think it feels to be stuck in this fucking wheelchair?” With a growing sense of panic the writer wonders how he’s going to get 5,000 words out of that

You and I have travelled this road before, so I don’t want to rehash our entire discussion. Sabermetrics is a useful tool, a tool that helps to clarify HOF cases. Dunno if Grich is a HOFer; my increasingly suspect memory suggests that he was considered “good not great” when active, but I think he was a better player than was generally perceived. Is he a HOFer? Beats my pair of jacks. At least the Baseball HOF is not like basketball’s, where seemingly anyone who played basketball after high school is in. ( I exaggerate slightly for effect.)

Neon Deion’s “is he that guy?” is more about fame than ability, it seems to me. Granted, you should probably be famous to be in a Hall of Fame… it is one of the questions on Bill James’ “Keltner List”

I’d be interested in your take on Mauer- I’m a sentimental sap, of course; Joe went to my high school, his mom grew up around the corner and was in my brother’s class in grade school- none of which, I realize are HOF qualifications. I used to think he had the pieces of a HOF worthy careeer, but not enough length, but I think now that the beginning of his career as a catcher marks him as elite- and he was above average after he quit catching. Oh, and he’s pals with Ryan McDonagh….

Garvey’s hair should be in the HOF.

Like many others I feel the Hall should be reserved for hitters who were truly feared (e.g, Barry Bonds being intentionally walked with the bases loaded) and pitchers who induced a feeling of utter hopelessness in the other dugout — Seaver, Gibson, Sutter, Rivera…). Maybe some glovemen who could rip your heart out with a spectacular rally-killing gem like Ozzie or Andruw.

Sad to grudgingly admit that personal favorites Gary Gaetti and Al Oliver fall just short of this special sainthood

Worst collapse in Philly history now belongs to the Eagles instead of the Phillies. Gawd, 10-1 to 11-7. Pounded by the 9-8 Bucs. Norm Snead who played quarterback for the Eagles passed on January 14th. Good player, not great though, threw lots of interceptions and played on a lot of losing teams, still 4 X Pro Bowler. The 2023 Eagles has to be the biggest collapse ever. Damn.

“Dunno if Grich is a HOFer”

You just answered the question. If I ask “Is Babe Ruth a HOFer?” The answer is obvious. The answer should be obvious.

“Neon Deion’s “is he that guy?” is more about fame than ability, it seems to me.”

Deion Sanders is on the NFL’s list of greatest players to ever, EVER play the game. So his words carry more cred than would a so-so player. Primetime backed it up on the field, which is what really matters. Deion’s main point stands. It’s all about ability, AND, is he that guy–meaning, is he one of the greatest to ever play the game? Period.

If I have a list of names on a continuum, they must all go together. If there’s a slight pause or doubt, then the answer is that obviously that individual wasn’t that guy.

It’s really not much more complicated than that.

Were you the one who wrote positively about Billy Martin? Always appreciated that. Bill was a good manager, I think, could’ve been a HOFer IF he had remained with a team longer than bouncing around. For various reasons, obviously, but he could’ve had a solid case for the HOF.
Shame.

If I list names like Hornsby, Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Musial, Jackson, Brett, Schmidt, Carlton, Seaver, Maddox, et al. There’s no doubt. These names are all “duh”. As in, of COURSE these dudes are the guy.

This makes Deion’s point, and I believe that the video is the single most accurate rejoinder to using other means to ascertain potential HOFers…is he that guy?

If I remember correctly, you said we’ve been down this road before. I think we were in basic agreement on the larger point.

Joe Mauer. I’m pausing because I have to consider… Which makes Deion’s point, and so the answer, ultimately, is no.

If I say the name Babe Ruth, there’s no pause.

If I say the name George Brett, there’s no pause.

If I say the names Johnny Bench, Yogi, Bill Dickey, Pudge (widely considered one of the greatest MLB catchers to ever play the game) there’s no pause.

I’m pausing with Mauer, which means….that Deion’s main point is correct.

Are you that guy? In many, many cases, the answer remains, no.

Uh, Ernie Banks had 512 HRs in his career, Steve. Mauer had 143. Banks revolutionized the SS position by hitting HRs at a phenomenal pace for the time. Not so much Joe Mauer. You just said it. “clearly”, in other words Banks was that guy. It isn’t so crystal clear with Mauer. Therefore, he isn’t that guy.

Compared to one of his contemporaries, say, C HOF Pudge Rodriguez, Joe isn’t quite at Pudge’s level of defensive greatness. So, no, Mauer wasn’t that guy.

Although the ’64 Phillies collapse is up there too.

I remember where I was too. A great player and a good guy.

The older I get the less I care about the Hall of Fame, any of them, but I like people to be recognized. It’s disgusted me when Santo and others are inducted after their deaths. I always assumed Stabler was in the Hall until the moment he was named.

Seems to me a Hall of Fame is for performers beyond numbers. I was a Baltimore Colts fan who never got over Super Bowl III. Once I got over hatred of Namath, decades later, I’ve admired him and figure he deserves Hall of Fame status because of – his fame. The circumstances and consequences of the couple weeks around the game make him immortal.

I’m a big Hall guy, more should be recognized. There are hundreds who deserve recognition but some are: Dale Murphy, Davey Concepcion, Mike Curtis, Tommy Nobis, Bill Madlock, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds (both great before ‘roids)…… and Little Feat.

Room for them both in the “Kent Hrbek HOF”!

first world problems:

no milk for my cereal.

cell phone battery went to 0.

arguing about first ballot hall of famers.

my question:

now that NFL has surrendered to MANY african demands, including that the number zero be available for jerseys, and given that every single team will have a player with the zero jersey, and 100% of those players will be africans…

what are the chances that an actually good player takes the zero jersey, then has a 12 year or whatever Hall of Fame level career…and the team has to retire the jersey number?

i bet they won’t. because the zero jersey is in such high demand from african players that none of the zero jerseys can ever be retired. the zero jersey is like a New York City taxi medallion.

no great player will ever play with the zero jersey. and on the super low chance one of them does, the zero jersey can never be retired.

addendum: longitudinal study on the number of penalties for the zero jersey player, versus the league average. it will be higher. it must be MUCH higher in FBS play. often the dumbest player on the team snatches the zero jersey as fast as he can. also: battles over who gets the zero jersey after the previous zero jersey player relinquishes it.

That doesn’t surprise me. Sports reporters these days ( not so much in baseball) have to spend their time ingratiating themselves with fruity black prima donnas with minimal education and egos beyond measure. It’s the ‘toy department’ for a reason.

Kent Hrbek was pretty good. Not a HOFer IMO.

How about Dale Murphy? Not a ‘compiler’ (didn’t get 3,000 hits or 400 HRs). Sportswriters lobbied for Andre Dawson relentlessly until he was voted in in 2010. But nobody says much about Murphy, 2-time NL MVP (Mickey Mantle won 3 MVPs) and 7 time All-Star.

A devoted Mormon, that surely didn’t help his cause. Maybe he should have stayed at catcher for 7 or 8 years. Or converted to Islam.

Colts & Orioles fan here. Remember “The Ghost To The Post” game with Stabler and Bert Jones for the Colts.

Super Bowl III? Look how many times Earl Morrall would miss a wide open receiver? How many times did the Colts get into the red zone only to be denied? Shifty that the merger came a couple of years later and Shula, Morrall and the Colts would go to the AFC. Shula took Morrall with him to Miami where it was Earl, not Bob Greise who took Miami all the way. I still wonder if Super Bowl III was fixed. IF the NFL had 3 straight blowouts over the AFL in the Super Bowl there would probably be no Super Bowl today. I just can’t fathom that Jets team beating the 13-1 Colts.

People will sometimes point out that zero is not actually a number. I’m siding with the Yanks’ great PA announcer Bob Shepherd — The Voice of God — who for example would always methodically intone “Number 23, Don Mattingly. Number 23.” But when Jerry Royster was in town with the White Sox he’d say only, “Zero, Jerry Royster. Zero.”

Gaetti at least received the honor of two fondly snarky references on Mystery Science Theater

I think Murphy’s best years unfortunately came when the Braves were awful, a nightly three-hour sitcom being rerun at 1 AM for those fortunate enough to have missed the live broadcast. This was in the early days of cable on Ted Turner’s Superstation. He certainly gave it the good fight but I never felt I was watching HOF history as Murphy strode to the plate between Claudell Washington and Bob Horner

I’ve been saying these things for years.

No first timer should be thrown off the ballot for failing to get enough votes. Many of those omissions could be voters who think the player should get in eventually, but does not qualify for that “first year of eligibility” inner circle.

It’s a Hall of Fame, not a hall of sustained greatness. Those who are famous for a few good years, or even for one at bat, should be at least worthy of consideration. That’s way I was upset about Mazeroski’s election as were so many sportswriters, and I continue to argue for Maris.

Indeed, Lou Brock was a lousy defender; he led the league in errors by a left fielder a breathtaking nine times. Furthermore, for a lead off hitter, he struck out too much, walked too little, and was caught stealing a lot. Hall of Famer: yes. First balloter: absolutely not.

I think the confusion lies in the word fame–it’s not exactly quite that alone. It’s “transcend” would be a more accurate word. Yes, of course the greatest of the greatest are going to be famous, like duh. If you’re considered among the greatest to ever play a sport, then it’s fairly obvious that everyone is going to know about it. How could a player be considered greater than 99.99999etc% and yet not be famous within his own sport, with fans in general? Doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t add up.

But transcending the sport itself means that that particular individual took it up another notch. They almost become bigger than the sport itself. Not that that is a hard prerequisite, but one where the person becomes “larger than life” or at least these types of superlatives start getting applied to the individual player.

Here’s also the thing: IF an individual player wasn’t an automatic slam dunk first ballot inductee of his first year of eligibility, well, I’m sorry. But that speaks volumes about the player–namely, he wasn’t unanimously considered to be all that.

AND, the LONGER it takes for that individual to be inducted, let’s try it this way…

Did it take Lawrence Taylor 20-30 yrs to get inducted into HOF?

Or Joe Greene?

Jack Lambert?

Dick Butkus?

How about Ted Williams or Stan Musial? Take them 25 yrs to get inducted?

Or Ken Griffey Jr? Take him 20 yrs to get inducted?

These examples, someone is going to come back with, “But dude! These examples you keep naming are among the greatest EVER to play their sport! That’s not fair!”

Exactly. The names are among the greatest ever, everyone from fans to experts alike, concede that they were the greatest to ever play the game. Not even arguable.

And THAT, I submit, was the original intention of Cooperstown, Canton, etc. To ONLY induct those specific individuals who are all that, and then some. The greatest—they transcended their sport and beyond.

Think of it this way:

There’s the special elite club (top 5-10% of players in a sport)

There’s the penthouse floor (top 2-5% of players in a sport)

There’s the VIP room (top 1% of players in a sport)

And THEN, within the VIP room itself, is a secret room (within the top 1%, take the top 0.05 to about 0.09% of that number)

And that’s who should be inducted into HOFs.

Stop putting every single dude who’s in the VIP, or eventually this trickle down will then be “Well, that dude sorta had the stats, because WAR, OPS, etc. Even though he wasn’t well known around the league, AND never won a gold glove, or MVP, or an indivual award etc, it’s okay, we know better. Just put him in because we say so.”

Are YOU that guy?

Period.

A fairly sizable contingent of Hall of Fame voters are self important morons.

Annoying radio personality Dan LeBatard was banished from the BBWA because he had his listeners make his picks. IIRC correctly the wisdom of crowds outperformed the media “experts.”

You know who should have been summarily kicked out of the BBWA? The 16 yahoos who did not vote for Greg Maddux on the first ballot…with the only excuse being they wanted to keep some very marginal figure on future ballots.

Otherwise, they should be summarily shown the exit, but it will never happen. It’s a club, and you’re not in it.

I’m not really into baseball, although I think it would have been my main sport interest if I had been born in the US. So my response to this controversy is conditioned on a couple of things I’ve noticed through my interest in other sports, an interest that has waned over the past few years, due to most organisations, people and parasites associated with professional sports becoming intolerably annoying.

1. Any award voted for by sports journalists is essentially valueless. When you look at the photos most of them publish above their byline, you see smug people whose main aim is to generate controversy. A very high proportion seem to have double chins so are people not even able to maintain basic fitness levels. Why would anyone give their opinions on athletic sports the time of day?

2. Why is there this infantile need to even have a “Hall of Fame”, with special gatekeepers to decide who was a great player or not? I follow cricket, and of course there’s controversy as to the relative merits of different players, but most fans know who the great players are and have been without anyone having to certify them.
The purpose of sports fandom is enjoyment, and part of the enjoyment is deciding for oneself who is great, without needing some obese chair polisher to decide it.

There’s an expression in cricket, a “flat track bully” , that is, a batsman who can run up big scores when conditions are favourable but may not be so great when the pressure is on. Some players with great stats may not have the elements of greatness that others with inferior figures have. Working things like that out for yourself is part of the joy of sport.

Correction

That’s way I was not upset about Mazeroski’s election . . .

A devoted Mormon, that surely didn’t help his cause

Good! Because it’s a ridiculous FALSE religion. Or actually a mind control cult.

I never heard of Carl Mays, but looking up his numbers, he’s right there with Koufax. Carl had a 51.5 WAR was 207-126 with a 2.92 era. Sandy had a 48.9 WAR was 165- 87 and had a 2.76. But every kid from Brooklyn, and every Jew in the Western hemisphere worshipped Koufax. It’s funny when you talk to these older guys and they act like you can’t question Koufax if you didn’t see him play. His numbers look very David Cone like to me and David is never getting in the HOF.

The Eagles lost their OC and DC to head coaching positions. They filled the coordinator vacancies with two affirmative action hires. Both were disasters.

Garvey must be the only player not in the Hall with six seasons of at least 200 hits

Two players have 10 seasons of 200+ hits but neither player is eligible: Ichiro and Pete Rose. However, there is a player besides Garvey who has 6 seasons of 200 hits and is not in the Hall of Fame. He also has over 2300 hits and a career .300 hitter. He also played over 99.8% of his career in the current century, so he is someone you should have heard of, especially since he played in 6 All-Star Games. However, when this player appeared on the ballot, he was immediately dropped after his first attempt due to a low vote total. That player is

no great player will ever play with the zero jersey. and on the super low chance one of them does, the zero jersey can never be retired.

I was surprised to learn that the Raiders did not retire 00 for Jim Otto but it turns out that the Raiders do not retire numbers at all. Jakorian Bennett currently wears 0 for the Silver and Black.

The most famous 00 in all of sports was Robert Parish of the Boston Celtics, who did retire the number.

The biggest one-and-done scandal should have been David Cone.

Five World Series rings;
one Cy Young;
one perfect game;
two 20-win seasons, which would have been four, if not for two player strikes;
one World Series rescue (1996), which the Yankees would have lost, if not for Coney pulling out game three with a scoreless start against the Braves (after his doctors had announced that he would never pitch again, and was lucky to be alive);
one of the greatest postseason pitchers ever (8-3);
a zillion 200-K seasons;
etc., etc., etc.

Per the Chief’s recollection: “But unlike other NBA greats, the “Chief” didn’t have the potential right away to become a star on basketball’s biggest stage. And when his junior high school team let them pick jersey numbers, Parish, who was the worst player on the squad, had no choice but to wear the double zero.”

Jayson Tatum wears 0 for the Celtics and will surely have it retired someday, so the C’s will have both 00 and 0 retired.

By rWAR Lou Whitaker is the 7th best 2b of all time. By JAWS he’s 13th best. Either measure he’s a Hall of Fame second baseman. If a .276 career BA is keeping him out of your HOF, what about Joe Morgan’s .271 ? No sane person thinks Morgan isn’t a HOF 2b, but a bunch of idiots in the BBWAA left Whitaker off their ballot. Sweet Lou is exhibit 1 on why the writers shouldn’t have this responsibility. Bobby Grich is exhibit 2.

This correction to my comment has appeared before my comment, which is still awaiting moderation after eight hours.

Garvey’s hair is still fantastic:

“Here’s also the thing: IF an individual player wasn’t an automatic slam dunk first ballot inductee of his first year of eligibility, well, I’m sorry. But that speaks volumes about the player–namely, he wasn’t unanimously considered to be all that.

AND, the LONGER it takes for that individual to be inducted, let’s try it this way…

Did it take Lawrence Taylor 20-30 yrs to get inducted into HOF?”

I mostly agree with this however, I have a very good exception to this rule in regards to Lawrence Taylor, and his name is Richard Dent. His numbers are almost identical to Taylor’s, with the exception of tackles. But Dent was a defensive end, not a linebacker, and still had more total sacks and only 1 fewer nterceptions than Taylor. He was also MVP of Superbowl XX. The only other guys as dominant as Dent on the D-line that I can remember from the 1980’s/early 90’s are Reggie White and Howie Long, and Dent had 40 more sacks than Long. Dent, like Taylor and White, could take over a game single-handedly. Long was a first ballot HOF guy, IIRC.

It took 10 years for him to finally get into the HOF, but that is based on the fact that the pro football HOF obviously favors ball handlers over all others. There are several QB’s, RB’s and especially WR’s in the PF HOF that have no business being there but cut the line ahead of Dent in voting. Dent is by far a more worthy selection than Mike Singletary, who in 1985 was the 3rd best linebacker on the field playing behind 2, and maybe a 3rd HOF defensive linemen.

Dent wasn’t a household name on a team full of superstars and personalities, but any Chicago Bear fan (or olineman that had to block him) from the time wouldn’t hesitate to say yes immediately if asked the question.

This is making my point.

I never said that Lloyd Waner belonged in the HOF. Older brother PAUL Waner (3,000+ career base H’s), absolutely deserved to be inducted. In this specific circumstance, Lloyd is a perfect example of getting inducted on big brother’s coattails. Or else it was a Veterans Committee thing, which I tend to suspect it was.

I would also hasten to add that Paul Waner was inducted in 1952,…his second yr of eligibility (retired in 1945). Why he wasn’t inducted in 1951 is anyone’s guess. Lloyd wasn’t inducted until 1967, some twenty yrs after he retired. Perhaps it was a Veterans Committee thing. In the past, the HOF Veterans Committee has had this egregious error, where ex-players tend to vote in their ex-teammates or some player that they played vs whom they thought was great. The list of that sort of thing is endless in MLB.

But unfortunately sometimes this happened; and now its happening on an even more consistent level. Slowly but surely the HOF is becoming the Hall of Very Good, or well, “he wasn’t all that bad so let’s put him in anyway”.

Freddie Lindstrom probably benefitted from the NY sportswriters who in the past, held considerable sway over MVP voting as well as HOF voting. Much as Roger Cahn’s the Boys of Summer helped showcase the early/mid ’50’s BRK teams, which is why we now have Gil Hodges in the HOF.

Why exactly is Gil Hodges in the HOF? If he were all that, he’d have been inducted in the late ’60’s after he had just retired. Not like he wasn’t remembered after he retired, as he led the Mets to their first ever championship in ’69.

So I fully concur about the questionable inductees in the HOF, past and present. But then again, that’s making my point regarding the example of Hall of Very Good.

The Hall of Very Good includes the VIP room in the club.

The Hall of Fame (what it was originally intended f0r) is the secret room within the VIP (it does not include the VIP room, period).

It’s a Hall of Fame, not a hall of sustained greatness.

And that’s fair. Having watched a lot of Brock in flyover country, I too cringed at some of his defensive play. But in the pre-WAR early 1980s, Brock’s membership in the then-more-exclusive 3000-hit club was likely enough on its own to gain him Hall entry. All-time leadership (at election time) in categories such as career and season stolen bases didn’t hurt, either. Nor did his arrival in St. Louis as part of the “greatest trade in Cardinals history”. The irony, though, is that Brock’s greatest stat was hitting .391 in 92 World Series plate appearances — true performance under maximum pressure (one recalls fine Cardinals utilityman Steve Braun, who walked with the bases loaded for the game-winning RBI of 1982 World Series Game 2, admitting in later interviews that he was too scared to swing the bat under the pressure). While others have hit over .400 in ~60 WS PAs (egs. Pepper Martin, Papi Ortiz), I don’t know if anyone other than Brock approached both .400 and 100 WS PAs. That’s some ballsy play, even if others have done it as well.

I never heard of Carl Mays

Really? I’m surprised if only because he was famous for being the only baseball player to kill another during the course of a game. This is besides winning four World Series, three with the Red Sox and one with the Yankees.

While others have hit over .400 in ~60 WS PAs (egs. Pepper Martin, Papi Ortiz), I don’t know if anyone other than Brock approached both .400 and 100 WS PAs

Yes, it certainly seems that way, although Brock had the advantage of playing in three seven-game World Series. To pick another example, Dr. Bobby Brown was the starting third baseman for the Yankees in three World Series, but they didn’t go the distance, so he only accumulated 46 PA while hitting .439.

Making Brock’s offensive performance more impressive is that he didn’t turn off his base running, stealing 14 while being caught only twice. Runs Created is a stat that has fallen out of fashion for some reason, but using the version of the stat that includes stolen bases, Brock created 7.6 runs per game in his World Series appearances. Reggie Jackson, in comparison, created 7.9.

I have a very good exception to this rule in regards to Lawrence Taylor, and his name is Richard Dent

While you mention that LT was a linebacker while Dent was a DE, the Giants were a 3-4 team then, so Taylor was a de facto DE most of the time.

Out of curiosity, I looked up how many HOF’ers that Bears team had. It looks like 5 (Payton, Singletary, Hampton, Dent, Covert) with the first two being first-ballot. Ditka is in as a player but wasn’t inducted until 1988, so I’m sure his coaching was taken into consideration. As for Big Blue, they only had 2: Taylor and Harry Carson, with owner Wellington Mara and coach Bill Parcells also being members.

I don’t know what that means, except perhaps those Giants teams were greater than the sum of their parts, with Parcells and Bill Belichick (defensive coordinator) coaching them beyond their talent. You could also make the argument that while the Bears had a nice five-year run 1984-88, you could easily argue that they underperformed in the playoffs during that time, getting upset at home twice against the Washington Redskins and also losing twice in the NFC Championship game at Candlestick Park against the 49ers.

Ditka was also 6-6 in the playoffs as a coach, with 4 of those wins coming with Buddy Ryan as his DC. Parcells, on the other hand, was 8-3 with the Giants.

I responded to your post here

I would also hasten to add that Paul Waner was inducted in 1952,…his second yr of eligibility (retired in 1945)

The five-year waiting period wasn’t added until 1954, with a grandfather clause for those who were already on the ballot. This is how Joe DiMaggio was elected in 1955, despite playing through 1951. However, there was an informal pecking order where voters generally wouldn’t elect someone who was recently retired over someone who had been retired longer. Despite this, Babe Ruth was elected in 1936 despite playing through 1935.

Not to mention he broke my 11 year old heart in 1965…

Thurman Munson batted .318, .302, 308, .297 and .288 over his last 5 seasons, his last being cut short. Why isn’t he in the Hall if those 4 years get Sandy in? My older brother played with a top baseball prospect in high school who threw 4 no hitters and was supposed to get drafted, but burned his arm out and never played again. Injuries, or deaths, happen. Seaver, Carlton and even Juan Marichal stuck around long enough to deserve to make it. Sandy got in for other reasons. Denny McLain had a 5 year run where he went 16-6, 20-14, 17-16, 31-6, 24-9. Better than Koufax. Not in the Hall.

Lawrence Taylor’s very public cocaine habit didn’t affect the speed of his induction.

And very conspicuously, Dent did not mention Mike Ditka or Buddy Ryan in his HOF speech.

He was a pro football analyst one one of the local sports cable channels for a few years. He knew what he was talking about, but frankly, was dull. Especially for a black guy.

Nice Steve Braun reference. One of the many players that Gene Mauch got good work out of when he managed the Twins in the late 70’s. A favorite of mine, even though he’s not even a candidate for my “Herbie Hall of Fame”. Sometimes in these discussions we tend to forget just how good all these guys are: Even though my hockey “career” is a testament to the notion that “ anything worth doing is worth doing poorly” I’ve played with a lot of good players- college players, minor pros, Olympic players and a few NHLers- all of them are really good athletes.

Back in my HS teaching days, before I became a retired parasite I arrived a couple minutes late to my class, but in time to overhear some baseball players complaining about their coach- one of the snippets was “ Coach wasn’t even that good a player; he only made it to Double A”

My response was something like, “Time out, Slapnuts! That means he’s the best ball player you’re ever likely to meet.”

And, Y/Z- our disagreement is mostly about “how big” ? You’d have a much smaller Hall- I mostly like the size it is, while acknowledging there are guys in there that shouldn’t be; I might even agree with you that the Hall is drifting toward “Hall of Very Good-ness” (Harold Baines… pick up the white courtesy phone…)

I think it was Bill James who pointed out that if you inducted everyone better than the weakest HOFer (Phil Rizutto? Heinie Manush?) you’d have to add another 700 players. I don’t think anyone wants that!

“While you mention that LT was a linebacker while Dent was a DE, the Giants were a 3-4 team then, so Taylor was a de facto DE most of the time.”

My point was as an OLB he’s positioned to make more tackles. An OLB always plays on the line in an outside shaded technique, where as a a true DE will often play an inside technique over the offensive tackle, or in the C gap between the tackle and tight end. the DE takes on a lot more double teams than an OLB at the point of attack. OLB’s also drop into coverage.

” don’t know what that means, except perhaps those Giants teams were greater than the sum of their parts, with Parcells and Bill Belichick (defensive coordinator) coaching them beyond their talent.”

As a former Bears fan, I think Singletary’s ability and legacy are one of the most overrated things in pro-football. As I said, he benefited greatly from playing behind arguably the decade’s greatest defensive line. But his reads were always slow, didn’t shed blocks all that fast, and a great many of his tackles were 7-8 yards down the field. T

The Giants had great coaching no doubt but they also had one of the two best linebacking groups of that time period. Banks, Reasons, and Johnson were all outstanding players, who got less recognition than they should have, like Wilson and Marshall from the Bears.

“You could also make the argument that while the Bears had a nice five-year run 1984-88, you could easily argue that they underperformed in the playoffs during that time”

They absolutely did underperform, but it’s still not quite that simple. In 1986 McMahon’s season was ended when Green Bay dlineman Charlie Martin (and sub human piece of garbage) picked McMahon up after the end of a play and slammed him on to the turf, ending his season. Not many great teams still go on to win Superbowls absent their starting star QB, and the Bears were forced to play rookie QB Doug Flutie in that playoff game vs. the Redskins.

Anyway, that injury pretty much ended McMahon’s career as a SB capable QB and he was never the same afterward. At the time he held the record for most consecutive victories for a starting QB at 25. That’s pretty impressive considering. But, among other things, Buddy Ryan left and Ditka put himself before the team, and that was effectively that.

It took 10 years for him to finally get into the HOF, but that is based on the fact that the pro football HOF obviously favors ball handlers over all others.”

This could also be politics. Because Taylor was in NY, naturally he would get more of the national headlines. However, The number one total great defensive player in the NFL during the ’80’s hands down, remains Lawrence Taylor.

Obviously Dent should’ve been inducted into the HOF much sooner, say, the first year of his eligiblity. The NFL also has a “quota”, where they only induct so many current players per yr. I think this should change. If there are truly amazing players who are “that guy”, and they happened to retire around the same time, then they should be inducted regardless of there are too less or too many of them in a single year.

Also, keep in mind that Taylor was in a class all by himself (much like Reggie White, for example). Taylor was the only defensive player to win the MVP since Alan Page–not sure if there’s been another D player to win the MVP since Taylor (haven’t checked yet). Taylor was the standard for defense in the ’80’s, which is another way to determine who is “that guy”.

No disrespect to Dent. I do think that some of it was that the HOF’s policies of only inducting so many players per yr.

Speaking of ball handlers vs non-ball handlers. Two words: Ray Guy. The dude singlehandedly changed the way punters play the game. The NCAA punting award is named after him. He had most of the all time leading punting stats when he retired. He changed the game and how defenses had to defend vs the punt.

And yet it took Ray over 20 yrs to finally get inducted into the HOF, namely, because of the animus vs special teams.

Regarding punting, Ray Guy WAS that guy. He should’ve been first ballot, without any questions.

The MST guys are Minnesotans; Gaetti, aka “The Rat” was a big part of the ‘87 WS champ Twins, perhaps the worst team to ever win a championship. Fun for me, though.

“Despite this, Babe Ruth was elected in 1936 despite playing through 1935.”

Also, the additional two exceptions were Lou Gehrig (inducted into the HOF in 1939, while Gehrig was still playing up to early May); and Roberto Clemente (inducted into the HOF in 1973, only a few months after his death).

Ruth is a special exception. Remember, the HOF was just starting up, and the hard set rules about years between retirement were still off in the future, which could also include Gehrig. Also, most of the players inducted in those first three years were MLB’s universal consensus for who were the greatest of the greatest to ever play the sport. Most of them had been retired for far longer than a couple of years. Ruth was so universally seen as that guy, so it made sense to include him as well.

But Clemente’s death shocked the MLB world, there was a unanimous consensus that he was that guy, and so it was a mere formality on the assumption that he would be inducted after his retirement, so it was a forgone conclusion.

I still don’t understand why Jim Rice is in the HOF.

It’s the Hall of Fame, not Hall of Metrics. If numbers alone are the criteria, fine, establish the threshold. Skip the 5 year wait, Mike Trout is inducted this summer. It would be good to take it from sportswriters, although maybe it’s by their sanction.

It’ll make for a smaller club. Jerks like Bud Selig, who helped Clemens, Bonds and others ruin their legacies by giving a wink and a nod to steroid use possibly will be excluded – special mention to HoF voters – sportswriters – for the same distinction.

Visitors to the baseball HoF probably don’t know half the players in exhibit and doubt they’d notice 500 from 1,500 members. I don’t think inclusion of great players like Dale Murphy, Al Oliver (Stargell wasn’t the only at bat I wouldn’t miss), or Steve Garvey diminishes the Hall. Babe Ruth, Henry Aaron and Willie Mays will still be the immortals.

Football – there’s a vintage video of forgotten Baltimore Colts linebacker Mike Curtis in which he’s referred to as “this future Hall of Famer”. What changed to keep him out?

Speaking of the Hall of Fame criteria, if originality, enduring influence and transcendence are what matters, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has nobody new since 1979, which is when Led Zeppelin’s last album was released.

I sure enough get the danger of approaching “pretty good” but don’t think the Baseball Hall of Fame, especially, is anywhere near there. League, roster and market expansion shows many more performers that deserve recognition…. . That’s all.

Have you noticed Earl Weaver used to be criticized for “waiting for 3 run homers” and now it’s standard operating procedure, no more hit-and-run or sacrifice bunts? I was a Big Red Machine fan but really liked the Orioles and the Lumber Company back then.

“The Ghost to the Post” was sort of the end, wasn’t it? Six months later Bubba Baker slammed Bert Jones to the Silverdome concrete and, blink, they’re in Indianapolis.

Bubba Smith wrote a book where he said something about Rosenbloom betting against the Colts in SBIII. I really doubt it though. I’ve read fairly recently of conversations leading up to the game where Colts players “hope Earl doesn’t wake up” from playing over his head. Morrall wasn’t alone though. One the best defensive teams ever and “pfft”. I’ve read a lot about the Colts players and the game over the years and they talk about it just like we do… “I still don’t believe it (sigh)”. I Liked Morrall, though. They probably don’t win SB V without him.

Shula evidently learned something. He replaced Morrall with Griese for the Super Bowl.

Obviously Dent should’ve been inducted into the HOF much sooner, say, the first year of his eligiblity [sic]. The NFL also has a “quota”, where they only induct so many current players per yr.

Dent retired in 1997, which made him eligible in 2003. Let’s see what DE’s got in before him and when they retired…

Elvin Bethea (HOU 1983)
Carl Eller (MIN SEA 1979)
Reggie White (PHI GB CAR 2000)
Fred Dean (SD SF 1985)
Bruce Smith (BUF WAS 2003)

So it looks like they wanted to get Bethea, Eller, and Dean in before Dent. Is that fair or unfair? I’m not old enough to say. The voters felt White and Smith were a cut-above so they jumped the line and were inducted on the first ballot, which I agree with.

Remember that for Canton, the voters gather in person the weekend of the Super Bowl to vote, they make presentations, and they openly lobby each other, although the vote itself is secret. For Cooperstown, it is conducted by mail/fax.

Taylor was the only defensive player to win the MVP since Alan Page–not sure if there’s been another D player to win the MVP since Taylor (haven’t checked yet).

This is correct, and as you know it is rare for the MVP to be a non-QB, never mind a defender, although in 1982 it was a kicker

IIRC that was one of the bits on MST — There’s a big ugly rat running around onscreen and one of the hosts goes “Gary Gaetti!” As Minnesotans they spent much of their time making fun of Wisconsin.

Anyway, the G-Man rarely failed to come through with a big game when I’d get out to see the Twinks, at the plate and the hot corner

But see, Reggie White and Eller ARE those guys, as in, the greatest to ever play the game. I….hope I’m not hearing a little haterade coming toward the likes of Taylor. No one has ever claimed that Dent is among the greatest EVER to play in the NFL. The consensus around Taylor is that he WAS among the greatest ever. Some all time lists put him in the top five players of the 20th century. Can’t say that about Dent. Facts nixay feelings you know.

Mosely won in a strike shortened season, but yes, he was that guy for that year.

Reggie White was unanimously considered, like Taylor, to be one of the all time greatest to ever play the game. And with the likes of him and Taylor, etc. they’re in a special corner of the room—immortality forever, period.

But I’m saying….uh…don’t start trying to go down that road a la Hippie Dave, where when things go vs a personal favorite, then that must mean that the facts don’t count, stats don’t count, individual awards don’t mean a thing since anyone and everyone can win one, the only reason a player was such a great standout was because he was the only one on the team, whereas the personal favorite played on an all stellar team, etc. Don’t be that guy, always looking for an alleged conspiracy because a personal favorite isn’t universally acknowledged to be that guy.

Because IF you say that Dent would’ve stood out more if he’d been on the Giants and Taylor wouldn’t have if he’d been on the Bears, keep in mind, that HOF PIT Joe Greene is considered to be among the greatest ever to play the game. And yet, the defense, considered to be among the greatest all time ever, included HOFers Lambert; Ham; and Blount. Each of these four routinely make the list of NFL’s all time greatest, but there’s a fine line of distinction which causes to one to be elevated a notch above the rest. Even within the secret room of the VIP, there’s a special,…uh, corner where even among the greatest ever, you have the best of the best of the elites….

And Lawrence Taylor is in the special corner within the secret room. I’m not quite sure that Dent is in the secret room. VIP yes absolutely.

The NFL consensus is that Lawrence Taylor was or is that guy (e.g. greatest EVER to play the game) and Dent is not. Granted, it can be a fine line. But nevertheless it is there and it does exist.

The O’s should have lost to the Reds and Dodgers, but they were beaten by teams like the Mets & Pirates (twice?) Baltimore clearly performs better as the underdog.

New York OWNED Baltimore in 1969. Knicks over Bullets, Mets over O’s, and Jets over Colts. However, Baltimore won 2 titles and 1 Super Bowl against the Giants so that evens the score and then some. Hopefully the Ravens won’t lose to Houston the way the O’s folded against the Rangers.

Banks, Reasons, and Johnson were all outstanding players, who got less recognition than they should have

I agree completely. Watching those Giants teams was a joy and made me the football fan that I am.

In 1986 McMahon’s season was ended when Green Bay dlineman Charlie Martin (and sub human piece of garbage) picked McMahon up after the end of a play and slammed him on to the turf

The Bears won that day 12-10 without the benefit of an offensive touchdown, but another big issue for the Bears was when they lost at home to the Rams in Week 9 in the rematch of the previous year’s NFC Championship Game, albeit against Jim Everett rather than Dieter Brock. If the Bears win that game, they would have hosted the Giants in the hypothetical NFC Championship Game, rather than go to New Jersey. Because the Giants came in 2nd in 1985, the Bears and Giants didn’t play in 1986. But because they both came in first in 1986, they played in 1987, with the Bears crushing the Giants in the opening MNF game.

But you are correct that Martin’s act was completely out of line. His two-game suspension was not nearly enough. I don’t know what kind of person you are, but if I was a Bears fan, I would have been very happy the day that died of kidney failure at 45.

Y/Z,
We finally agree on a baseball-related issue. Rice’s admission to the Hall was a case where his “fame” as the “most feared RHH in baseball” overrode his sub-Hall quantitative achievements. While traditional stats obscured Evans’ value (walks, defense), they hid Rice’s serious flaws (defense, 2nd highest DP rate of all time).

The Bill Simmons HoF pyramid makes a lot of sense. There should be room for Babe Ruth and Luis Tiant in the Hall, as well as recognition that one is an all-time great and the other had a top 2%(?) career that is worthy of recognition.

Y/Z,
We finally agree on a baseball-related issue. Rice’s admission to the Hall was a case where his “fame” as the “most feared RHH in baseball” overrode his sub-Hall quantitative achievements. While traditional stats obscured Evans’ value (walks, defense), they hid Rice’s serious flaws (defense, 2nd highest DP rate of all time).

The Bill Simmons HoF pyramid makes a lot of sense. There should be room for Babe Ruth and Luis Tiant in the Hall, as well as recognition that one is an all-time great and the other had a top 2%(?) career that is worthy of recognition.

Bubba Smith wrote a book where he said something about Rosenbloom betting against the Colts in SBIII. I really doubt it though.

It is accepted as common knowledge that Rosenbloom bet on the Colts in 1958 laying the 3½, which is why Unitas went for the touchdown in overtime rather than kick a field goal. Having said that, field-goal kicking was much less precise in 1958 than it is now, so perhaps he didn’t want to risk it in that cold December day in Yankee Stadium; placekicker Steve Myhra was only 4 for 10 on field goal attempts that season.

There’s a decent case to made that the the NFL/AFL PTB took the necessary steps to ensure a Jets win in SB III: in order to guarantee the upcoming merger:

“The Bears won that day 12-10 without the benefit of an offensive touchdown, ”

Green Bay was bad in the 80’s.

“albeit against Jim Everett rather than Dieter Brock. ”

And Eric Dickerson. McMahon was very underrated IMO (up to the point of the ’86 injury) and he was a big reason they got even one SB victory. Losing him was as bad as if the 49ers lost Montana.

“But you are correct that Martin’s act was completely out of line. His two-game suspension was not nearly enough. I don’t know what kind of person you are, but if I was a Bears fan, I would have been very happy the day that died of kidney failure at 45. ”

Good riddance. He should have been thrown out of the league and (HOF tackle) Packer head coach Forrest Gregg should have been suspended as well, because he was the primary driver of the hostility (the year before in GB, a bunch of dog crap was left in the visitor’s locker room for the Bears to discover; and 2 Packers were ejected from the following game for ridiculously blatant late hits). He and Ditka hated each other going back to the two teams’ rivalry during the 1960’s.

You may be right from either perspective. Rosenbloom was a player for sure and Unitas, confident as he was, may have figured ball control was safer than kicking. It’s evident with his pass to Mutscheller in the corner that he didn’t worry about a turnover.

What a game – even if I was born a month before. My father use to tell me about getting off the tractor in time to see the last half of the game. Seen it complete many times since. It’s something else, the way Unitas is heading to the sideline before Ameche hits the ground. What a game.

My guess is that when Grich went from Baltimore to California, he got in with Ryan and Downing and doubled his homers per season.

I see what you did there! Or, more to the point, I see what he did there.

Knows who Michael Young is = 👍

I agree. Rice had a torrid run at his peak, but overall he comes up short for me. Sort of a short career. Below average, at best, left fielder who went on to DH.
Retired at 36

Yellich hurt his back, and he’s never been right since. He also broke a kneecap. Bellinger had a good year with the Cubs in 23. Plus he’s only 28. He might reinvent himself whereas Yellich is 32.

I’m impressed, but did you know that he is who I was referring to before you clicked on the spoiler tag? I certainly never would have guessed it without looking it up.

Almost forgot, who was the Bears all time standout greatest player during the late 70’s and the 80’s? Anyone? Hint: it sure wasn’t Dent, or Singletary, or anyone else on D.

Walter Payton.

THAT is an example of the secret room, a la, the greatest ever to play the game. Dent compared to Payton doesn’t come anywhere near close regarding that factor. And Walter was often over the decades considered high up on the “greatest players to ever have played in the NFL”

Somehow the greatest of the greatest manage to find a way to have lengthy durable careers. Probably part of the key to their greatness. That, and having insane amount of natural athletic talent.

Back then, the game was blacked out in New York city, so if you were a Giants fan, you could drive out to Connecticut (or Long Island) and watch the game on Channel 30 out of New Britain, drive down the Jersey shore and watch the game on Channel 3 out of Philadelphia, or listen to the radio broadcast on WCBS88.

In my response to Mike Tre I mentioned Payton as one of 5 HOF’ers on those Chicago Bears teams (Payton, Singletary, Hampton, Dent, Covert) with Payton and Jimbo Covert playing offense. Covert played at Pitt with Russ Grimm, Mark May, and Dan Marino, and when the Bears played the Giants, Lawrence Taylor never had a sack in three matchups! Despite retiring in 1990, he didn’t make the HOF until 2020.

Considering I have never said anything negative about LT, I can only conclude that you’re a verbose moron.

His fundamentals are not great…he has a big looping, awkward swing.

It could be a loss of confidence…you just never know what mental state a person is in.

For much of his career he was the third best player in his own outfield.

As a Minnesota native I spend much of my time making fun of Wisconsin. Although as someone else put it, Wisconsin is Minnesota without the smugness…

“But see, Reggie White and Eller ARE those guys, as in, the greatest to ever play the game. I….hope I’m not hearing a little haterade coming toward the likes of Taylor. No one has ever claimed that Dent is among the greatest EVER to play in the NFL. The consensus around Taylor is that he WAS among the greatest ever. Some all time lists put him in the top five players of the 20th century. Can’t say that about Dent. Facts nixay feelings you know.”

Part of the issue is optics. White, Taylor, and even Bruce Smith were all good for a soundbite or a quote in tomorrow’s paper. Taylor and Smith were flashy. Dent was none of that, and he was on a team and a defense that had a lot more personality so he definitely got lost in the crowd. (when the defense is getting 7 sacks per game Dent’s 2.5 and a FF get pushed aside). Things may have different had he been the sole HOF talent on an otherwise mediocre defense (like Bruce Smith). Taylor, White, and Smith all also had personal controversies spotlighted in the national media which follows Steve’s theory of ‘all media coverage is good media coverage’ or whatever.

And I’d put Carl Eller and Richard Dent in the same room, which ever it may be. And I don’t think anyone is hating on Taylor. There’s never been a player like him.

Question for the room about Flutie, who, as you might imagine is a god here in New England. Is there a case to be made that evaluators were never fair to him- every mistake or bad game he had was stuffed in a box marked “too short”. Not provable, of course, but might he have had a very good NFL career if some coach had been able to look beyond the shortness? Fran Tarkenton was supposedly too short, and he seems to have put together a pretty good career.

I ask because there are a shit ton of coaches out there ( at every level in every team sport) who focus in on what a player cannot do,, as opposed to putting that player in situations where he can succeed. In baseball that’s guys like Earl Weaver and Whitey Hezrzog ( I’d add Gene Mauch to that list; Y/Z I know we disagree here.) Are there football coaches like that?

Thanks for pointing that out about Covert He was an absolute beast and dominated every matchup. He career was shortened by injuries, which is why it took him longer to get into the HOF. Plus Anthony Munoz gets 99% of the 1980’s olineman attention because diversity is our strength. Covert when healthy was better IMO.

One of the most underrated players of all time was Bears fullback Matt Suey, who was very good at completely neutralizing Taylor with his blocking. There is a famous soundbite of Taylor on the sideline threatening to kick someone’s ass, and he talking to Suey.

My theory on Super Bowl III (and, shudder, IV) is that in 1968 it was taken as read by vast majority of the sporting press that the AFL was an inferior league; in actual fact, it wasn’t and perhaps, given that there were a number of innovative coaches (Gillman, Stram… etc) the AFL might have even been better than the NFL. What was undeniably true was that the top AFL teams were very good indeed. And don’t forget that the Packers of ‘66 and ‘67 are considered one of the greatest teams of all time. The same mistake in perception had happened in the early 50’s when the AAFC teams were taken into the NFL- and AAFC Cleveland won the championship in its first season.

In fairness to Mets fans, the 1969 team was a very good team, winning 100 games. The Pirates were always a very good team.

The ’60s, ’70s, early ’80s Orioles were great teams – as they are now. No need to apologize for them. Maybe I have practice from being a Braves fan. For thirty years to this day, I can’t imagine fans of any other team getting more pleasure from the performance of their team than I do. The game of baseball is the thing, whether it’s June or October. My team always has a good chance to win. You’ve got a decade at least of the same in front of you with the Orioles. Enjoy it.

Good luck with the Ravens.

Not directly, but your tone implies that Dent was the be and end all during the era of which he played.

Also, Dent wasn’t even the greatest CHI on the team at the time. That honor goes to Walter Payton.

And that’s all I’ve been saying. Dent is in the room, but he’s no LT. While LT certainly had his share of controversies, and on field trash talking, on the field, he nearly always backed it up. Also, for the most part, back then the MSM usually highlighted and gave the lions share of publicity to the players who were the best on the field–their on field work did the talking. Obviously the most outrageous players got headlines, but if they didn’t have the on field talent to go with it, they soon were dropped.

Example: Steve Carlton. He wasn’t the flashiest, smooth talking, always media friendly like Reggie Jackson. And yet Steve Carlton is among the greatest NL P’s to ever have played the game in the 20th century. He let his on field play do his talking. So much so that for years he refused the media to interview him, until he finally retired, and called a mini press conference. Part of the MSM at the time were completely shocked, if I recall correctly, since he had seldom talked to them for a good portion of his career.

“Fran Tarkenton was supposedly too short, and he seems to have put together a pretty good career.”

Fran was one of the all time greats, no question. Except in three games with the championship on the line.

PIT’s D literally owned him in Super Bowl IX.

Mauch was an amazing manager in his time, if only he could’ve gotten it done and gotten to a WS.

Payton was great, but not as great as this guy.

The NFL should have had the stat “Yards After Hit In Backfield” just for Sanders.

Michael Young, Steve Garvey, Juan Pierre, and Doc Cramer are the Mount Rushmore of Guys Who Got 200 Hits But Rarely Walked Or Homered. And yes, I knew that from memory, I use them in Immaculate Grid often.

Sanders was great, but consider, Payton didn’t run behind a pro-bowl offensive lineman until after he broke the rushing record. The Bears from 1975 until 1982 were very similar to the Barry Sanders era Lions.

Payton was a better receiver out of the backfield, a better blocker, and as Steve said, could pass the ball. He was also 20 pounds lighter.

If Barry had played one more season he could have broken the rushing record, but he didn’t. Shame on the Lions for not building a better team around him.

There was and is no one better than Walter Payton. Sanders is a close second, but he’s still second.

And I wouldn’t even put Emmett Smith in the top 10 running backs.

Barry Sanders holds the record for most yards lost by a Running Back in a career with 1,114. This is why I could never see him as the All-time Greatest. Great yes, Greatest no.

Did you know Suhey’s grandfather was the coach of Penn State only three before Joe Paterno?

Also, I used to laugh when Hideki Matsui played for the Yankees as his last name was pronounced exactly like Matt Suhey 🤣

Don Shula had a good reputation for tailoring his offense to the players her had, rather than trying to fit round pegs into square holes. When his quarterback was Johnny Unitas or Dan Marino, he gave them the freedom to show off their arms, while when he had Larry Czonka and Jim Kiick in his backfield, he ran the ball. One wonders how much more success they would have had if the two running backs didn’t go to the WFL.

Since the Dolphins (along with the Raiders, Steelers, and Cowboys) are very popular here in North Jersey, it amuses me that they haven’t done jack shit in the last 50 years. If there was ever a team that coasted on its reputation due to early success, it is the Miami Dolphins. They literally have not won a playoff game this century and they are the only NFL team to have this distinction!

And I wouldn’t even put Emmett Smith in the top 10 running backs.

Early in Sanders’s and Smith’s careers, there was a debate about who the best back in the league was between the two.

By the time Sanders’s career ended, that debate had been over for a long time.

Similar thing happened with Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

This depends on how you define “much”. Jim Ed was the starting LF for the Red Sox for 12 seasons (75-87, but not 77). Out of those 12, he was the worst outfielder for 3 of those seasons…

1975 (Fred Lynn CF, Dwight Evans RF)
1976 (Fred Lynn CF, Dwight Evans RF)
1987 (Ellis Burks CF, Todd Benzinger RF)

So, for the 9 year stretch of 78-86 he wasn’t the worst outfielder on the Red Sox in any of those seasons.

I exaggerate slightly for effect.😀

It may not be the case about Shula and Unitas. Both had iron will and they clashed often about play calling. Shula demanded control as coach but Unitas, being Johnny Unitas, considered it his job, his offense. Unitas also burned about not starting or at the very least entering the game earlier during SBIII.

There was a good book on the subject published not long ago but there was a subplot of the book about Unitas’ personal life that didn’t need to be included after fifty years, so I won’t mention the author or title.

Here’s one for you. Most people hear Joe Namath, and they think great HOF QB. The same people hear Eli Manning, and they think, “eh.”

What’s it based on? Because it’s certainly not numbers.

Manning: 84 passer rating, 57,000 yards passing, 366 TD’s (244 INT’s), Comp %: 60%. 2 SB wins, 2 SB MVP’s, 4 pro bowls.

Namath: 65 passer rating, 27,000 yards passing, 173 TD (220 INT’s) Comp %: 50%, 1 SB win, 1 SB MVP, 4 time AFL all star; 1 pro bowl

You know who Eli’s numbers are very similar to? John Elway. And Eli’s SB victories are much more impressive than Elway’s: Two Tom Brady Patriot teams; the first one was against the famous/infamous 16-0 regular season team, with one of the most, if not the most, famous 4th quarter comebacks in SB history. Elway’s Broncos did beat defending SB champ Green Bay, but their second one was against the fluke Atlanta Falcons who upset the heavily favored Vikings to make it there.

So that is my point. It’s perception that leads people to believe Taylor was in a different league than Dent, but, for 5-6 years at least, they were in the same league. Taylor was better overall, but not different room better, and the numbers prove it. The sack is the ultimate measure of a pass rusher, and Dent had more. By what other measure can you say Dent doesn’t belong in the same room? It’s as simple as that.

Namath and Taylor and Elway are the sexy picks. Dent and Eli are the ugly girl at the end of the bench who doesn’t get asked to dance.

“Also, Dent wasn’t even the greatest CHI on the team at the time. That honor goes to Walter Payton. ”

So if Payton played with Taylor instead it would somehow diminish Taylor’s achievements? That doesn’t make any sense.

Smith, through no fault of his own, was probably the most spoiled running back in history. He lined up behind the greatest offensive line of the 90’s, if not all time, for several years, in a back field with a HOF QB, an all time great triple threat fullback, and a HOF WR past the hash.

He never had to put a team on his back, year after year after year, like those other two guys did, while defenses could safely key on them because there was no other offensive threat.

Johnny Unitas, is that guy. He is the greatest NFL QB to ever play or start from 1920 – 1980, without a doubt. Some of the things, like the two minute drill, and others have been attributed to him.

Also, Unitas did start Super Bowl V, and threw an amazing 75 yrd TD pass to HOF TE John Mackey.

Speak for yourself. PIT won Super Bowl XLIII in 2008.

Shula was only three years older than Unitas, and as a young coach I’m sure he was stubborn because he wanted to be seen as being in charge. Nevertheless, he had the ultimate power to bench Unitas and didn’t, so he implicitly put his stamp-of-approval on the plays Johnny called.

Bench Johnny U., huh?

There were indeed problems between the two almost from the beginning. After the shutout to Cleveland in the ’64 title game in which the Colts played poorly in all facets, Shula singled out only the offense postgame. He didn’t mention Unitas by name but the NY Times did in their article.

It wasn’t vanity on Shula’s part. One player said it came down Shula wanted 50/50 pass/run, Unitas wanted 75 pass. Shula’s overarching problem was pressure to win from Rosenbloom.

1980? There was a 1990’s espn documentary of the top 10 QB’s that left for commercial before the hour was up with QB No. 2, Joe Montana. When it resumed, No. 1 was announced as Johnny Unitas because “quarterbacks are often compared to Johnny Unitas, Johnny Unitas is never compared to any other quarterback”. Not long after that there was an interview with Montana where he said “Unitas is the guy. I wear a no. 19 jersey while raking leaves”.

I’ve seen 3 NFL games ever. One was the AFC championship before SB V vs. the Raiders. I got to see Unitas throw a TD pass to Perkins to put the game away. My greatest vicarious thrill.

“So that is my point. It’s perception that leads people to believe Taylor was in a different league than Dent, but, for 5-6 years at least, they were in the same league. ”

But over the entire career, the nod goes to LT.

And I don’t particularly think that Namath was all that, as far as all time great. He won a great symbolic victory, namely, for the upstart AFL over the NFL. And he was in NY. That counted a lot.
But if we were being honest, stats wise, Namath isn’t all that. Much like Jackie Robinson in MLB. If Jackie were white, he would not be inducted into the HOF.

“Taylor was better overall”

Excactly my point, and thus, he’s in the corner of the secret room. If you want to state that Dent is in the secret room, that’s fine enough. Also keep in mind, that Dent wasn’t even the greatest player on the Bears at the time. That honor goes to Walter Payton, whom most will agree, is one of the greatest RB’s ever of the 20th century. I believe that the consensus is solid on that one, I said ONE of the greatest RB’s ever to play the game (not THE greatest).

But facts remain, no one is clamoring that Dent is one of the all time top five greatest defensive players of the 20th century. And they (NFL experts by and large) and do state that LT IS one of the greatest ever to play the game. As this perception hasn’t changed in decades, one has to assume that there is a logical basis in fact to continue to state this claim.

“but not different room better, and the numbers prove it.

“The sack is the ultimate measure of a pass rusher,”

I used to believe that. I don’t entirely bandwagon that aspect of an all around great defensive player. It’s how they’re utilized in the defensive schema of the team they play for.

“So if Payton played with Taylor instead it would somehow diminish Taylor’s achievements?”

Back up a bit. Chill.

Payton and LT are BOTH at the same LEVEL. Like say, Walter Johnson and Babe Ruth. They BOTH are at the level of “greatest to ever play the game” and certainly BOTH have been considered to be among the greatest at their individual positions.

“That doesn’t make any sense.”

No, it’s total sense. BOTH LT AND Payton are AT the same LEVEL of greatness. LT/Payton is an apples to apples comparison. Both have been stated to be among the greatest to ever play the game during their careers. Payton is still ranked quite highly all things considered. (Payton for example is still ranked as CHI’s greatest ever player, period. And LT is considered to be NY’s greatest ever player as well).

LT/Payton are on the same level of greatness. Similar to say, Jerry Rice and LT. Or Ronnie Lott and Jerry Rice. Or LT/ Jerry Rice. It’s not even arguable. Same level makes sense.

Also, just stating the universal consensus among NFL experts, etc. LT and Payton are all that. LT without question. But during his playing time and for many yrs afterward, so too was Payton.

I fully concur, and fully without doubt agree re: Unitas being that guy. I was trying to tone it done here because there are probably some here who think that Unitas really wasn’t all that in the greatest ever to play at QB position. I always put Unitas as the greatest ever to play the game, or at that level of greatness. But I allow that others don’t think so highly of Unitas anymore. Why, I don’t know. Same with LT. Common sense should state that LT was the greatest ever, but you know, some like to shout other names when those names either aren’t all that, OR they’re not quite at the same level of greatness. They’re not on the same plane so to speak.

Unitas is like Jim Brown of his generation. They both belong on a different level. They transcended the game itself (much like LT did).

But others want to argue the facts and state “nah, they weren’t all that.” Ok, whatever.

I suppose one could state that Unitas is at the level of “greatest 20th century QB to ever play in the NFL”, he’s certainly AT that level of greatness. Like LT. Like Jim Brown. Like Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott. There are others, but very few at that level, it’s an entirely different level of greatness. Unitas changed the game, and he was THE standard for an NFL QB for many decades.

Just like LT is the defensive standard of greatness.

Nice analysis and I agree.

Except for baseball, which is forever exceptional for me, I haven’t been a big sports fan for decades. I’m not conversant on much after Bird and Jordan, Montana and Elway. With that admission, there is one more standard that can’t be surpassed – the entire Steel Curtain defense. I know half of them are in the Hall of Fame but they all belong.

The Colts defense of the ’60’s, early ’70’s was great; the Bears of ’85 was epic, the Ravens of Ray Lewis, the same. Chuck Noll built a great team but that Steelers defense beat great teams for a decade, always keeping them in the game, often dominating. I almost cringe thinking about their play. I loved watching them all but Jack Lambert tossing Cliff Harris to the ground when Harris dissed Roy Gerela after a missed field goal set the tone for that SB win and typifies their play for the whole run.

I’ve never seen anything else like it.

(Come to think of it, Joe Montana wore no. 19 with the Chiefs. Maybe a tribute to Unitas. Both were Pittsburgh guys.)

“the entire Steel Curtain defense. I know half of them are in the Hall of Fame but they all belong.”

Amen, amen, and Amen. I knew there was something likeable about you all along.

Unlike CHI’s monstrous, and amazing, pulverizing, crushing D in the mid. 80’s, PIT’s D of the ’70’s is the all time benchmark, the standard if you will of what a great D was all about. CHI won 1 SB, PIt won 4, and thus helped PIT to be forever known as the Team of the Decade.

“I loved watching them all but Jack Lambert tossing Cliff Harris to the ground when Harris dissed Roy Gerela after a missed field goal set the tone for that SB win and typifies their play for the whole run.”

Right, after SB X, during post game interview, Lambert remarked to the interviewer “We’re supposed to be the intimidators.” Translation: NOBODY intimidates the Pittsburgh Steelers! And they truly believed that, and backed it up on the field most of the time. You can’t make this stuff up.

You can say that Dent was all that, but, he wasn’t Joe Greene; nor Jack Lambert: nor Jack Ham, much less Mel Blount. These are examples of being in the secret corner within the secret room–the immortals, the greatest ever to play the game.

“Joe Montana wore no. 19 with the Chiefs. Maybe a tribute to Unitas. Both were Pittsburgh guys.”

Yes they were. It’s a shame that Montana seldom ever acknowledges his PIT roots, and prefers to pretend as if he originated from NoCal.

This is an example of what you were mentioning. Only one team during that era was the true intimidators.

Montana probably lives in SF for the same reason Unitas lived in Baltimore, it became home. Montana used to appear occasionally on a cable business show. Years back, he was asked who he rooted for in the NFL. He said, “Ah, the Steelers. I’m a Pittsburgh guy”.

I miss watching those guys play. I was a Celtics fan since Russell/Havlicek and can watch videos of them and Bird’s teams while at the edge of my seat but for some reason the modern game does nothing for me. Same for football.

Robert Irsay ruining my Colts probably started it.

Just checked for Steelers in the Hall. Five of the Steel Curtain are members. Not in there are Fats Holmes, L.C. Greenwood, Mike Wagner, Andy Russell, Glen Edwards, Dwight White and J. T. Thomas. Everybody can’t be in the Hall but that entire defense should be…. maybe even late arrivals John Banaszak and Robin Cole.

Banaszak and Cole aren’t HOF worthy, period. This is an example of some also rans who managed to secure a starting position on one of the greatest D’s of all time. Because they were started, ergo some would believe that EVERYONE on the D should be inducted.

Of the 5 D players in the HOF, four were first ballot HOFers (Greene; Blount; Lambert; Ham) and all four have routinely popped up on NFL’s all time great players list. THIS is what I’ve been saying all along here at this post which some don’t seem to understand, namely, that this level of greatness transcends all other players, period. Greene; Lambert; Ham; Blount—are equivalent to LT; Lewis; Butkus; Bednarik; Lott; Primetime; Rod Woodson; Reggie White, etc. All these names belong together on the continuum of greatest ever, period.

Glenn Edwards played S for PIT from 71-77, and then went to SD for about seven yrs. Shame, he was just as good as Donnie Shell, who was inducted during the NFL’s 100th anniversary. I have mixed feelings about Shell. He was very good, even exceptionally good. But HOF? Not necessarily. If he were then he’d have been first ballot, and not 30+ yrs later after the fact, almost as an afterthought.

Of the names you listed, perhaps Andy Russell (who was the official captain of the D from ca.1969-76), and of course LC Greenwood. Greenwood actually would show up in the HOF voting, and once made it to the finals, but just couldn’t quite get in.

JT Thomas and Mike Wagner were perennial starters throughout the ’70’s. JT Thomas stared out as CB but after PIT made Shell a starter in 78, they first drafted Ron Johnson to start at CB, and then moved Thomas at Safety opposite Mike Wagner, because Glenn Edwards left for SD. Wagner led all Safeties in INT in ’73.

But PIT should’ve kept Glenn Edwards at Safety. Excellent and very good. Not quite HOF, but definitely not a mere role player.

If Thomas and Wagner (and perhaps even Edwards earlier in his career) had started on any other NFL team during the ’70’s, there’s a likelihood they’d have been inducted into the HOF. Both were very good, but were clearly overshadowed by some of the greatest ever to play the game at defense. In other words, this is how much depth PIT had on defense. Admittedly, because NY’s 80’s D had only one greatest ever player and not 4 like PIT, it was easy to see just how great LT was–heads and shoulders
beyond and above the other ten on D.

Marino, unlike Montana, used to make it a point to come back to PIT to visit as he had an extended family in the area. Perhaps Montana didn’t have a particular personal reason to return to PIT for anything. But its still telling just the same. Makes all the difference if one has extensive roots and family ties to the area as to whether or not they return or make a clean break from their hometown.

I exaggerated on purpose because the Steel Curtain was THAT good but you touch on something that has bothered me about Hall of Fame business – “If Thomas and Wagner…. had started on any other team during the ’70’s, there’s a likelihood they’d have been inducted into the HOF. Both were very good, but were clearly overshadowed by some of the greatest to ever play the game… “. Over shadowing in their time costs them accolades but shouldn’t diminish recognition for their career.

I still have a Sports Illustrated poster on the wall of the Colts’ linebacker Mike Curtis. Great at pursuit, the run, pass coverage (25 ints.), the blitz (22 sacks), AFC Defensive Player of the Year, All-Pro at middle and outside LB, 4 Pro-Bowls. I haven’t been through it but imagine he lost some hardware to Butkus and Lanier. He was the force on one Super Bowl winner, picked-off a pass that lead to the winning FG in SB V, an MVP type play but writers gave it to a LB on the losing team (Might have been what finally got Chuck Howley in last year) and Weeb Ewbank’s SB III game plan was to run away from Curtis’ side of the field. Staubach said he was great, Starr said Curtis worried him more than Butkus.

There was a ’70’s NFL Films feature that call’s Curtis “this future Hall of Famer”. Yet… .

Tommy Nobis, too. Penalized for who drafted him.

Halls of Fame are only there to milk a little extra attention out of what are usually evanescent accomplishments.
Fifty years from now, the only 20th century baseball players who will be remembered at all will be the guys who cruised into the Hall when baseball was at its short peak in national consciousness – Babe Ruth, Gehrig, Ted Williams, and DiMaggio, and two or three pitchers. That is the real Hall of Fame – despite the fact baseball was huge for a couple of decades, the temple for Sports Aficionados in Cooperstown is not really a hall of “fame”. For example, Jackie Robinson, no matter how many special days they celebrate for him, will only be remembered for affirmative action purposes, if affirmative action is still a thing.
Nobody will care who had the most wins or the most strikeouts. Cy Young will be forgotten – not that he isn’t already (99 out of 100 Americans already don’t know what team he played for, and he will just be more forgotten as the years go by). That is just how life is. Fifty years from now, Douglas MacArthur and Patton will be the only army officers of their day who are remembered. No Navy officers will be widely remembered. It is not fair but it is what it is. Nimitz and Halsey will be as forgotten then as Spruance and Mitscher are now. Life is not about remembering, unless you get paid to be a historian.
And nobody will remember Johnny Unitas except for people who specialize in sports trivia. Or Joe Namath or Reggie White or Lawrence Taylor. Football was never as big a thing as the football fans thought. It was just bread and circuses.
-Heywood (who forgot his fictitious e-mail again)

Even Gehrig may be completely forgotten soon.
About 20 years ago they stopped calling Lou Gehrig’s disease Lou Gehrig’s disease.
And, since we are talking about the most famous Yankees, it has been a long time since I have seen a Baby Ruth candy bar for sale. And probably Joe Dimaggio being mentioned in a top 40 song from 55 years ago is not going to ring a bell for anyone born after, say, 1980.
Ted Williams might be remembered for his Korean War service among military historians ….
Well the Roman Empire lasted a long time and nobody can remember the name of a single athlete from back in that day.
– Heywood

I have to admit, that I’m not at all familiar with Mike Curtis. Oh wait, just viewed NFL Films’ America’s Game: Story of 1970 Baltimore Colts. I had seen this episode before….so THAT’s Mike Curtis? He was one mean tough dude.

Over shadowing in their time costs them accolades but shouldn’t diminish recognition for their career.”

PIT’s Thomas and Wagner were overshadowed by their more famous and greater teammates. It doesn’t appear that Curtis was overshadowed by any of his teammates on D, or am I wrong to assume that?

When people think of BAL from the ’60’s and early ’70’s, obviously the first player one thinks of is Unitas. He’s at that level.

The thing is, if Curtis was “the” defensive guy on BAL, that’s good. But apparently wasn’t good enough if he was weighed vs. Butkus; Nitschke; Huff. These three are HOFers and were/are at one time or another considered to be among the greatest ever to play the game, period at their position.

Don’t know what to say. Curtis wasn’t a bum creampuff, but not quite at the level of greatest ever to play the game. Certainly he was better at his position than PIT’s Thomas and Wagner—they were good, but no one would ever call them great. But the way they played in PIT’s defensive scheme, they could’ve got some HOF consideration if they started for another team.

Once a player gets to that level, starting in the NFL, it’s a fine line, you know? Between really really good, awesome-tastic, and the greatest ever to play the game, period.

But the line exists. It’s real and it’s there. But definitely there were some amazing players during the ’60’s thru the 80’s, even into the ’90’s. Some aren’t as quickly recalled, and yet they were well appreciated by their teammates, and hence the reason they were reliable starters.

They truly gave it their all out there on gameday, season after season. That’s partly why the NFL is America’s Game. That, and having John Facenda narrate many of the early NFL films.

“since we are talking about the most famous Yankees, it has been a long time since I have seen a Baby Ruth candy bar for sale.”

I actually had a Baby Ruth a few days ago. Yes, I’m being serious. No, I’m not making that up. Was pretty good, too.

Babe Ruth is STILL remembered by most all MLB fans, AND to a great extent even casual fans of MLB. He has the staying power. People tend to remember the larger than life players.

“Fifty years from now, Douglas MacArthur and Patton will be the only army officers of their day who are remembered.”

Eisenhower, duh. Helped win WW2. He was President. And he was on TV as well (can youtube it). Eisenhower is remembered.

And I like Ike….really I do.

Ok, I can knock it out of the park. You want a concrete example of immortality?

ELVIS

A whole frickin’ music genre came directly, or most directly traced to Elvis. He certainly is one main source of originating modern Rock and Roll.

Nearly half a century after his death, and most people over age of 12 know exactly who Elvis was. Facts. Hollywood just made a top ten box office hit film about him in ’22. The actor, Austin Butler was Oscar nominated for his performance. Shame that Steve overlooked reviewing Elvis.

Graceland is 2nd most visited private house per yr as a tourist thing. Elvis has the staying power.

One possible way to immortality? Get the girls to like you. Really, really like you. That helps.

And THAT is an example of immortality. People still remember Elvis. Facts.
Of all ages. Facts.

Apparently people can remember historical things/people when they want to.

Come to think of it, Joe Montana wore no. 19 with the Chiefs. Maybe a tribute to Unitas.

It definitely was. He couldn’t wear 19 with the 49ers because Scott Bull wore it his rookie year, and once he left the team Montana decided to just keep 16. When Montana went to the Chiefs, 16 was already retired for Len Dawson, so he had an excuse to go to the 19 he always wanted.

Our only difference is you favor a “small Hall”, a stricter standard for entry, I favor a “big Hall”, believing there are more that are worthy beyond those named. I think that a hundred more players don’t diminish standing of the thirty legends or the hundreds in between.

If Wagner is worthy it doesn’t matter that he lined up next to Mel Blount, he was stellar for ten years, only lacking contemporary legend. Mike Curtis was considered HoF bound – until he wasn’t – and maybe lost an edge when the SB V MVP was conferred to losing linebacker Chuck Howley. Howley was a great player, inducted into the HoF last year but he should have been 30 years ago, before dementia.

I probably have empathy for people who I think earned a place because of experience. My last year in school I hit a hard .440, slugged .700, more rbi’s than games played, stole some bases – I was fast for a catcher; threw out 60% of base stealers and not a single passed ball with the star pitcher being a sinker baller. We wouldn’t have won a single game without me, literally. I was named All-nothing, league or team. The all league catcher hit .240 with red hair. I heard later the outfielders would talk during games, “we’re lucky to have him”, and the named team MVP told a brother decades later, “your brother got screwed”, compliments that made up for slights. Looking back I would never have changed anything because I loved playing and still miss it.

It’s not projection. I only think there are more great players than the most famous.

Eisenhower will be remembered for three things – one, being a two-term president, two, the “Eisenhower” era viewed as a specific iconic time in American history, and three, his work as a ‘military officer’ – not specifically an army officer – as Allied Supreme Commander in Europe.
MacArthur is viewed more as a WWII ‘army’ commander than Eisenhower – more directly commanding army troops – although of course he commanded more than Army troops in WWII — and Patton, through the workings of fate, is probably going to be, hundreds of years from now, the one American person most famous and celebrated for being an army officer (and not for anything else, which rules out Washington and a few other army officers who became president). In Japan, of course, MacArthur will be famous longer …
-Heywood

“Our only difference is you favor a “small Hall”, a stricter standard for entry, I favor a “big Hall””

I am consistent though. Although Wagner and Thomas played for PIT, I recognize that they don’t belong in the HOF.

When we say the word, “HOF”, I take a basic simple test—a line of continuum. Each and every name listed must belong as an equal on the line. If there’s a pause, a hesitation, or a doubt, then that name doesn’t belong in the HOF. It should be obvious. No pauses or questions. It just IS.

“believing there are more that are worthy beyond those named.”

I believe that the “worthy” ones, the immortals, are limited. Any HOF must be exclusive, it isn’t open to any “riff-raff” just cause he played a long time. I’m NOT saying that Mike Curtis was a riff-raff. I am saying that once the precedent is established that “borderline” players are inducted, then slowly but surely the integrity of the HOF is compromised. It isn’t for the “very good”; it isn’t for the “kinda sorta maybe”. It IS for the greatest ever to have played the game. Each name must belong on that line. Othewise the wrong player(s) have been inducted (e.g. the HOF is contaminated by the wrong players).

“I think that a hundred more players don’t diminish standing of the thirty legends or the hundreds in between.”

It would depend on which players are inducted. But, each decade there are only so many players who are the greatest of the greatest. So in that sense, the HOF should be selective.

“If Wagner is worthy it doesn’t matter that he lined up next to Mel Blount, he was stellar for ten years, only lacking contemporary legend”

Mike Wagner wasn’t or doesnt’ belong in the same sentence with Mel Blount. Wagner was very good. He wasn’t HOF worthy (he most likely would agree in his unassuming manner). It’s like, he wasn’t quite there, you know? It would’ve helped if he had say, won a major award like defensive player of the year the way Lambert; Greene (twice); Blount.

Also, the experts have never put his name anywhere on the all time greatest lists as they have other PIT players. That has to be taken into account. Since I don’t follow the Colts, I will allow that you know better regarding that team. Curtis was certainly held in higher regard (based on what I’ve read so far) than Mike Wagner.

“Howley was a great player, inducted into the HoF last year but he should have been 30 years ago,”

Ok, here’s my thing. I don’t believe that a great player should be inducted 20, 30, 40+ yrs after his retirement. If he was really all that, he’d have been first ballot. Pure and simple. I get that when the HOF opened in ’62, they were playing catch up, but again, if Howley was all that, he’d have been in far earlier.

All I have to do on this example is note that Howley’s teammate, Bob Lilly (Mr Cowboy
Bob Lilly was first ballot into Canton. No question about him. He IS considered one of the greatest to ever play the game, period. He’s at that level.

If the HOF had no qualms first balloting Bob Lilly, then they could’ve done so for Chuck Howley. Apparetnly they didn’t think he was all that, or he wasn’t quite all that when his career was fresh in people’s minds. That is very telling.

I also strongly don’t understand why Ken Stabler was inducted after 30 yrs. He wasn’t quite all that. If he were, he’d have been first ballot. It isn’t really more complicated than that. Somehow, the voters know exactly who to first-ballot immediately.

I it going to take Tom Brady 20, 30 yrs to get inducted? Seriously? And that’s my point. We know who the greatest are–they’re usually first balloted in.

I think Deion has an excellent point on this one.

My point was responding to yours. Eisenhower is, and will be always remembered. Certainly his military career is part of his immortality. But he’s definitely remembered.

And so’s Elvis. In fact, I tend to think that Elvis will outlast most US presidents and most US military generals of the last century as far as immortality and remembrance are concerned within the popular culture at large.

Our discussion of a subjective topic, induction into Halls of Fame is turning metaphysical. I think that’s common. I’m consistent also. Legacies depending on sportswriters mirrors that of political success depending on activist media. I have a lot more sympathy for ballplayers though.

There is or was a prominent sportswriter possibly with the Washington Post that said “Pete Rose almost ruined baseball”. Pete screwed up and he’s paying for it but that writer went further towards ruining the game by staying silent for decades about steroid use. He probably voted for Bud Selig’s HoF induction and if there is one person responsible for the integrity of MLB being questioned…. . I’m pleased that I don’t know the writer’s name, can only wish to forget Selig’s.

I saw your comment about Elvis and I agree. Elvis has one thing going for him that he often isn’t given enough credit for – he sang like nobody’s business.

“I’m consistent also.”

I recognize that you are, and it’s appreciated.

“Legacies depending on sportswriters mirrors that of political success depending on activist media.”

Technically, no, it might go back to the midcentury American belief that, well, the professional “experts” of any given field have the most cred, or right to speak on certain topics that pertain to their expertise. If a sportswriter has studied a particular sport for several decades, and has covered a few hundred athletes within the sport (as well as winning awards for his sports coverage) then he presumably has the right to make certain educated opinions. Like for example, that LT was among the greatest to ever play in the NFL, period. Now, when dozens and dozens like him in his field come to the same consensus, then it’s best to accept their words on the matter. After all, presumably they’re not BSing around as they make their living giving their educated professional opinions on a specific topic

And for the most part, I see no reason to doubt their consensus (especially when its near universal), much less their professionalism.

“There is or was a prominent sportswriter possibly with the Washington Post that said “Pete Rose almost ruined baseball”.”

He didn’t. The sportswriter is perhaps sucking up to the MLB powers that be to deflect from the real blame, namely, that the powers that be conveniently ignored the PEDS problem for several yrs/a few decades because the tradeoff was increased revenue.

This includes Bill James as well, PARTICULARLY Bill James and others like him.

“Pete screwed up and he’s paying for it but that writer went further towards ruining the game by staying silent for decades about steroid use.”

So many did remain silent, and it’s inexcusable.

“He probably voted for Bud Selig’s HoF induction and if there is one person responsible for the integrity of MLB being questioned…. . I’m pleased that I don’t know the writer’s name, can only wish to forget Selig’s.”

I’m consistent. I DONT believe that executives have any right to be inducted into a players (and coaches) HOF, period. No team owners, no GMs, no scouts, period. That’s not how it works. Perhaps one could put a few plaques up regarding their contributions in the HOF at a specific wing/floor, something along those lines. But aside from that, the HOF isn’t about them. It’s for the players, period.

“I saw your comment about Elvis and I agree. Elvis has one thing going for him that he often isn’t given enough credit for – he sang like nobody’s business.”

I knew there was something else about you that’s likeable. God bless.

Among the musicians that Steve has insightfully given opinions on, Elvis isn’t one of them. In fact he chose to pass up the academy award nominated Elvis film in ’22 for some strange reason. “Who’s Elvis?” It’s like, come on.

He was a product of midcentury Americana. Confident at times, a bit of a swagger, and all around good (although heavily flawed) person. Whenever I listen to his music, I’m reminded of an America that was exactly that way–confident, in charge, and knew how to make competent, and for the most part, excellent decisions particularly on the national level.

Elvis would probably have agreed with Jack Nicholson’s line in Easy Rider–“You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I can’t understand what’s gone wrong with it.”

But let’s keep the HOF pure and help it to live up to its original standards. Only the greatest ever, EVER, to have played the game (no doubts, and unanimous) are inducted. That’s what it was intended for.

Sometimes the problem with Elvis appreciation is almost all pop music is producer contrived. Even before protools, tunes were shaped to fit current tastes. The Eagles wouldn’t be HoF without Bill Szymczyk – cut-and-paste, FEDEX’d solo’s all the way; The Beach Boys – Hal Blaine and Tommy Tedesco, never credited; songs are built, people are hired for tours and album covers. Frank Beard thinks he may not even have play on ELIMINATOR.

There’s nothing wrong with it. I like everything as long as it’s old or sounds old. Just today on the cd player Sticky Fingers followed Pablo Cruise(?!) and Merle.

Elvis was talent and soul. Elvis wasn’t discovered. He’s Elvis in spite of Tom Parker. Felton Jarvis steered the sounds onto the grooves but the records were recorded live except for choirs and horns, rarely as many as dozen takes. Elvis was the music director.The TCB band was great. Elvis sang and let James Burton and Ronnie Tutt play to fit his performance.

I hated the movie. The first half may have captured the frenzy in the making of Elvis but the last half pissed me off, six years of stupor. As sad as his decline was, even in his last years he had some good times, did some good singing, made some good records.

Mostly, I love Skynyrd.

(I said earlier here, if only the greats were allowed in the R’n’R HoF there’d be nobody after 1979 and Led Zeppelin’s IN THROUGH THE OUT DOOR.)

“Elvis was talent and soul.”

Amen. And praise the Lord.

“Felton Jarvis steered the sounds onto the grooves

Felton did very little in the way of producing. Mostly, he was there to keep Elvis happy. Elvis produced about 99% of all his own material.

“but the records were recorded live except for choirs and horns, rarely as many as dozen takes.”

Uh, there are several instances of Elvis doing 30, even up to 40 takes to get a song right (couple of songs on GI Blues; took nearly 30 takes to get Can’t Help Fallin’ in Love).

“Elvis was the music director.”

Elvis was also the producer de facto. Felton did very little.

About the ONLY time, outside of Sam Phillips, that Elvis used an actual producer was Chips Moman, whom many consider to be an unsung hero in the music industry. He recorded many artists and got them many many top 40 Billboard hits. In early 69, Elvis needed some new songs, new material to record to build off the ’68 Comeback Special. Chips gave him Suspicious Minds; Ghetto; don’t cry daddy and others that helped to cement his legacy and bring him back to artistic relevance after a near decade of movie soundtrack hell. Chips refused to give Parker the publishing rights to the songs, but Elvis for virtually the only time in his career went vs the Colonel,recorded the songs, and the rest is history.

I’ve always been puzzled as to why the producer gets the song publishing profits, and so does the songwriter(obviously in that case) but NOT the singer. Without the singer’s interpretation, there’s no hit record, period.

What Felton did on Suspcious Minds, was he took the master and added brass and a bump at the end of the song. Some don’t like that, I love it. He wsa probably trying to recapture the live energy of Elvis’ August ’69 time in Vegas, which was a triumphant success according to Rolling Stone and other hip music mags of the time. Suspicious Minds record is released in Sept 69 and goes #1. So Felton’s additions to the song didn’t hurt it.

“The TCB band was great. Elvis sang and let James Burton and Ronnie Tutt play to fit his performance.”

Ronnie Tutt explains that he got the job, because he instinctively understood to always watch Elvis, follow his eyes, his directions. The two were amazing together.

People have to realize that Elvis not only chose the band himself; he also chose the Sweet Inspirations and the Imperials; as well as a 40 piece orchestra for backing. He envisioned a large sound for what he wanted on tour and eventually in some of the studio recordings. Most of today’s Vegas as well as even the Halftime show at the Super Bowl, can be directly traced to Elvis’ creativity of a large big sound in front of a live audience at that.

Elvis liked ALL kinds of music, not just blues and R&B. He loved gospel; pop; even opera, and he wanted as much of these elements for his new sound–and for the most part, at least early on, he succeeded.

“As sad as his decline was, even in his last years he had some good times, did some good singing, made some good records.”

Amen. He won a Grammy for his 74 performance of How Great Thou Art, and most agree, the consensus, that his Aloha from Hawaii show in ’73 was a spectacular masterpiece. When he wanted to, and when he was fully involved, Elvis was better on stage live than any other 20th century US entertainer, bar none.

The Beatles didn’t have it LIVE. The Beach Boys, forget about it. Name anyone, ANYONE, and Elvis can still trump them/he she or it at live performances.

Probably never will be another–a cliche, yes, but in the case of the King, it’s definitely true.

PS: Hal Blaine worked a long time with Elvis. He did the Hawaiian drums on Blue Hawaii for example. Excellent work.

One or both of us knows too much about music.

I’m not a musician – even if I can play a mean counter top, dashboard and steering wheel – but while making lists in my mind while driving, binging on youtube, etc., I’ve settled on Blaine as my favorite drummer. Bonham is a beast, Moon amazingly retains power while subordinating himself in driving a song as structured as “We Won’t Get Fooled again” and there are many others but my two favorite performances are Blaine’s on Spector’s/Ronettes’ “Be My Baby” and “Baby I Love You”. The intros especially as they cascade into the verses get me every time. Speaking of producer contrivances, Blaine’s tracks are the best things about Spector’s classic Wall of Sound.

Elvis in Memphis sure enough is peak Elvis, my favorite two albums worth, but what followed in Nashville and other studios is fine too. The difference to me is the quality of the songs but the TCB band just about makes up for it. His rendering of “Funny How Time Slips Away”, done around the time of the end of his marriage to Priscilla, makes me feel like I’m going through the breakup; James Burton’s chickin’ pickin’ reminds me there is more to guitar than a slide. I like all of his live albums but the last one.

“Elvis liked ALL kinds of music”. He sure did and that’s what he told Marion Keisker at SUN the first day – “I sing all kinds”. His “If I Can Dream” is about the only song that’s ever made me try to sing.

I absolutely love early and LIVE Beatles – my triumvirate with Skynyrd and Elvis. It’s what I expect primal rock’n’roll to be, short and fast but with Everly Bros. harmonies. The Beatlemania shows are tight considering the great sonic disadvantage of not being able to hear themselves and I’m waiting for delivery of also sonically challenged Star Club recordings of a great bar band – John Lennon and his backup band. The occasional McCartney show tune provides contrast.

I’m with you on singers too. Many like to discount anybody that doesn’t write their own songs. I don’t argue anymore.

“His biggest miss was his almost 100% prediction that Pete Rose would be a first ballot inductee.”

That’s his 2nd biggest miss. His biggest L is not publicly taking the lead vs PED useage in MLB. The attitude was more along the lines of, “Steroids? What steroids. Nothing to see here.”

“I absolutely love early and LIVE Beatles – ”

You’ll have to define what you mean by LIVE Beatles. Not sure if we have the pre-63 live shows on video to see. Because seeing them post ’62 live, the whole 63-66, they’re a fairly piss poor live band. I DON’T get why the girls are all screaming. They exude absolutely no sexual energy, no masculine energy. There’s a reason why upon meeting them, Muhammad Ali exclaimed as they left, “Who were those 4 little fag—s again?” Ali liked and respected Elvis though. Upon meeting him, he exclaimed “Wow, you’re almost as handsome as I am!” Two masters in their respective fields, both respecting one another.

Elvis had it all over the Beatles performing live. Not even close.

Coming as a long time Beatles fan, have to say, their early stuff (first couple of albums) aren’t much different than say, NSYNC or the Backstreet Boys. Boy band stuff except from the UK they were early on *on their albums). They started growing up on Hard Days Night and Help!; and finally matured on Rubber Soul. But they were a never great live band. That’s usually been one of the knocks on them.

“my triumvirate with Skynyrd and Elvis. It’s what I expect primal rock’n’roll to be, short and fast but with Everly Bros. harmonies. The Beatlemania shows are tight considering the great sonic disadvantage of not being able to hear themselves and I’m waiting for delivery of also sonically challenged Star Club recordings of a great bar band – John Lennon and his backup band. The occasional McCartney show tune provides contrast.”

I just don’t see it with the Beatles performing live. No sexual energy, no excitement. I DO get it with Elvis, though. Live performances I would never put Elvis and the Beatles in the same sentence. It’s Elvis all the way.

His “If I Can Dream” is about the only song that’s ever made me try to sing.”

I love most of his ballads. He could sing them better than most around. For every “That’s All Right Mama”; “Mystery Train”; and “I Gotta Woman” he also recorded “That’s where your heartaches begin” “Dont” “I was the one” “Can’t help fallin’ in Love”. Elvis also liked, no, he LOVED Gospel music. And secular critics still can’t wrap their minds around that one–well they better get used to it. He stated straight up what his musical tastes were, just look at most of his major recordings. It’s not a big secret.

“Elvis in Memphis sure enough is peak Elvis, my favorite two albums worth, but what followed in Nashville and other studios is fine too.”

I agree. And this was when Chips Moman produced these albums, which I was saying earlier. Elvis greatly benefitted from having a top notch first rate producer in the studio helping. A bit surprised the albums weren’t Grammy nominated.

Elvis was also electrified, he enjoyed the material he was recording after nearly a decade of soundtrack hell—though I’d make an exception for the Blue Hawaii soundtrack.

If you really like Hal Blaine as you say you do, then give Blue Hawaii the album a listen. Hal plays the Hawaiian drums and his presence is on all the songs. An excellent, solid, if underrated album (though it was Grammy nominated for best soundtrack that yr). It was #1 in the US for 20 consecutive weeks, and sold more during the ’60’s than Sgt Pepper album. So if there’s one soundtrack LP that Elvis recorded that was first rate, it’s Blue Hawaii. I’ll defend it til the end.

“The difference to me is the quality of the songs but the TCB band just about makes up for it. His rendering of “Funny How Time Slips Away”, done around the time of the end of his marriage to Priscilla, makes me feel like I’m going through the breakup; James Burton’s chickin’ pickin’ reminds me there is more to guitar than a slide. I like all of his live albums but the last one.”

The TCB Band was awesome, no great. Elvis chose them all personally to be together. But he also chose JD Sumner, the Imperials, and The Sweet Inspirations. They started out in church, did RB with Aretha Franklin, and Elvis chose them as his backup and they were there on all his tours thru the ’70’s.

Elvis knew the sound he wanted on stage. His musical instincts were usually top notch, and on the money. One great legend, still missed to this day. Thank goodness he was American, and in the best way. The kind that one used to feel pride in saying that they were. Probably won’t see his kind for a long time.

“I hated the movie. The first half may have captured the frenzy in the making of Elvis but the last half pissed me off, six years of stupor. As sad as his decline was, even in his last years he had some good times, did some good singing, made some good records.”

Sorry, I didn’t catch this earlier.

If you’re referring to Elvis the movie (’22), while Austin Butler’s performance was excellent (won Golden Globe and was Academy Award nominated), remember, there was an ultimate agenda at work. It was executive produced, I believe, by Priscilla and Jerry Schilling (one of the remaining Memphis Mafia members still around). Elvis’ first cousin Billy Smith on his youtube channel has some harsh words for it. Also, adding to what you say, Linda Thompson wasn’t mentioned at all in the film, and neither was Ginger. I didn’t like the last part, but the first part was put in, I believe, to protect Elvis’ legacy vs the Woke and CRT crowd. It’s well known Elvis liked black music. But he also liked white music. Regarding music, he didn’t see color, he just liked what he liked. That should be a good enough attitude to live by, and for the longest time in the US, it was.

But as the decades go on, Priscilla is the US’s version of Yoko Ono–wants the world to remember her as the primary muse behind an icon of 20th century popular music. Neither one deserves the respect, especially as it’s just a basic cash grab on ‘cilla’s part. She ain’t all that.

I’ve got most of Blue Hawaii on various compilations. I’ll put them on the cd changer and I’ll put on my replica shirt, purchased through Graceland, that Elvis is wearing on the album cover. The shirt gets comments but no one has ever guessed it was Elvis’. Usually they think I’m gay. ….I’ll probably end up getting the expanded edition of the album.

We’ll disagree on the Beatles as a performing band. There are only about ten live albums that I listen to regularly and Live at the Hollywood Bowl is one of them. From the beginning – of life – when I heard and listened to the Beatles it was Sgt. Pepper through Abbey Road. Then I researched back to Beatles 1962-1966, the “Red Album”. That’s The Stuff. The test is what makes me dance across the kitchen with the volume at 10 while getting supper ready. “I Saw Her Standing There”, “Please Please Me”, “A Hard Day’s Night”, “She Loves You”, “It Won’t Be Long” – even an obscurity like “Leave My Kitten Alone” – and the floors are scrubbed clean. They’re better on road trips too. The same for the live recordings. I guess the excitement reaches me through recording limitations. No, it’s not the same as Elvis but it’s not a competition.

I guess I like rum-and-Coke and pep pill Beatles better than marijuana and LSD Beatles. I still like it all though. I just don’t much like art-rock

Ali’s comments about the Beatles, I get it. Gary Rossington said similar about meeting The Rolling Stones. I wasn’t a fan of Ali anyway. A Civil Rights superstar shouldn’t use race like he did against Joe Frazier when he called him the white man’s fighter. Smokin’ Joe was a good and dignified man and never posed as anything but a boxer. He wasn’t a very good swimmer, though.

Re: your original mention of Mr. Sailer’s lack of regard for Elvis – awhile back after my making a comment about Elvis he replied with appreciation of “Suspicious Minds”. I don’t believe he’s a snob or anything. I made a comment here that “anybody who thinks the ’70’s weren’t great, I got two words for ’em – ‘FOG’ and ‘HAT’”. He replied saying the Fool For the City album was good. …And so is Foghat Live, one of the other of ten live albums I listen to frequently.

I agree about Butler. He was pretty good. I hadn’t kept up with it much in the development and pre-release. I did read what Billy Smith said. I believe I got the dvd after I read his comments.

I’ve always been impressed about the way most of Elvis’ friends and family spoke of him. I never heard a bad word from Alden, Thompson or Schilling, or from an endless line of co-stars, band members and session musicians*. Lisa Marie seemed reverential to the last. Priscilla – I can’t imagine the life she led and ultimately the worst she’s done is keep on making money, just like Tom Parker said the day Elvis died. They haven’t hurt Elvis. Red and Sonny West and whoever released the last concert film and LP took care of that. They must not have hurt his legacy too badly, I wasn’t really a fan until years later.

You may have seen a documentary from ’18 or so, Elvis: Searcher. Priscilla and a couple others are on it talking about Elvis as an artist and his thirst for meaning. It is very good – except. I can only give it 3/5 because the presence on the panel of the fraud, Bruce Springsteen. If that offends, I apologize for offending but not for the sentiment.

*Quincy Jones didn’t like him. Eff him.

“Ali’s comments about the Beatles, I get it.”

I also said that Ali really liked Elvis. They both got along really well. Elvis had a robe made for Ali before one of his fights, “The People’s Choice”–Sonny West told the story that a misprint came out “choice” instead of “champion”. Ali liked it as it was though.

The point is still made, and I stand by it to the end. No way that the Beatles were a great live performing band, and especially over Elvis. Not happening. They made great music, absolutely. But live? Nope. There’s no sexual energy, no masculine energy, etc. They’re no different than NSYNC live. Now we can speculate that maybe that was Brian Epstein’s hand at work, to tone them done for mass consumption, or whatever. But in the ’50’s, ain’t no one, NO ONE, was better than Elvis at performing live. I can understand why he said what he said. The most popular Beatle in the US was always Ringo, as he seemed to have something approaching a personality, he had actual charisma. I’don’t see it on stage with George, not with Paul and not with John either. Nope, nope, and nope. May not be a competition, but it is a natural pecking order of things. One was the originator, the mold that set the standard for everything else, while the rest followed the mold tor template path that was already carved out for them.

Let’s also remember the ranking order of greatness here: THEY wanted to meet Elvis, not vice versa. HE was their idol, not vice versa. They acted like little kids outta third grade when they finally met him, not vice versa. If only there’d have been cameras and video that one time they met.

Again, I don’t think we’ll see the likes of Elvis anytime soon in the music business.

Steve often has insightful noticing comments Re: music business, after a fashion. What has to be taken into account is that many of the bands he grew up with listening were pretty much all influenced one way or another by the likes of Elvis. It’s like, in midcentury American popular music, there’s Elvis, and then there’s everyone else. One has more charisma, stage presence, energy etc in his little finger than most of the major music acts combined.

Honestly, I ask you. Do you think 20-30 yrs after Paul McCartney’s death, that millions of people will annually flock to his birthplace like a holy shrine or something, the way that fans do annually to Graceland? Nope.

They don’t do that with George, and certainly don’t with John to the same level that they do with Elvis. Who was more influential, as a solo artist–John or Elvis? I think we both know the answer to that one (it sure ain’t John).

A bit envious that you have the Blue Hawaii red hawaiian shirt. Would think that most women over a certain age would be familiar with it. If not, just tell them that it’s the Graceland special, and they’ll understand.

I needn’t be convinced about Elvis. He’s the One. I’ve always loved Jerry Lee; nobody’s more fun than Fats Domino; nobody’s like Johnny Cash; Ricky Nelson made some of the best rock’n’roll records ever, one of my favorites; Berry’s music, indispensable, not the man. Not fun anyway.

Elvis is compelling as a singer and as a human being. It seems he’s appreciated from two perspectives: the great singer, alone from any interest beyond the voice; and music and pathos, the young man with a talent not to be denied who, in essence, created a new language, yet, was never able to find meaning or comfort for himself. Almost Shakespearean. The last seems the one that prevails when there’s money to be made.

There’s a third point of view in which media usually has no interest. Elvis, the great singer and good and soulful man. That’s my perspective and the one of the thousands, across three generations, that still visit Graceland. No, I don’t think any of the individual Beatles will have paths worn to their graves in fifty years. I’ve lost friends for pointing out the music the Beatles made solo has mostly sucked; they’ve missed the magic of their mutual accompaniment. All Things Must Pass is great; Band on the Run and a few singles, nearly; Lennon – scattered singles, great, and promising stuff before his murder; I really like Ringo’s greatest hits. Nonetheless, I’m betting the Beatles’ music will give Elvis’ music a run for it’s money in a hundred years. It’s doing it now – kids are still discovering it.

They’re really two different disciplines to me and I’ve given up on which is my second and which is my third favorite music. I still love the ramshackle nature of live Beatles. It’s like punk with talent and no whining. I like Lennon’s Rock And Roll album for the same reason.

You can get the shirt. I imagine they’re still on the Graceland website. You might want a size larger. I purchased the “1970’s Tour Windbreaker” and had to return it twice. I’m barely Extra Large but 2X barely fits.

I don’t know why but these replies usually land almost a day after posting according to the stamp. I usually take an hour as soon as I see them to reply.

…. but, on the other hand, even if both artists remain popular 60 and 70 years later, I’m not certain there will be any more than anthropological interest in 100 years. I wonder if they can survive decreed fundamental and engineered transformation that’s threatened. We’ve seen societal and technical change in the last 20 years that challenges that of the previous 100 years which was epic in itself.

I wonder if someone as humane, as American – as white – as Elvis will be allowed.

Insightful and true: there’s hardly a bad or negative comment about Elvis from those that knew him. What is interesting is that within the Memphis Mafia there were later some cliques that probably existed, or were under the surface. Schilling; Esposito; and Klein were on one side, while Red, Sonny, Fike, Lacker, Billy, tended to be on the other side. I tend to agree more with Red, Sonny etc over Schilling, Esposito, Klein.

Side note: Billy and his wife Jo made three part videos about the Elvis movie. They liked Butler’s interpretation; they couldn’t stand the movie. Remember, as Elvis’ cousin who lived with him nearly his entire life, Billy saw Priscilla and other things up close and personal more than just abou anyone else was. Nearly everyone of the MM all claimed to be Elvis’ “best friend”; only Billy can claim to have been the closest to him as he was blood kin.

Let’s also remember: Nearly all of the MM liked both Linda Thompson and Ann-Margaret. They near unanimously hated or couldn’t stand Priscilla. Wonder why? In fact, the only ones who seemed to like Priscilla were Schilling, Esposito and Klein, wonder why that was? They were bought and paid for, that’s why.

That’s why I tend to agree with the majority consensus: Priscilla is the US’s version of Yoko Ono– not well liked much less loved or respected among those that knew her behind the scenes. All she wanted was the money, the fame, and of course, the Presley name. She’s NOT Elvis’ widow; she’s his ex. Can’t really stand her. She’s not special, she won the genetic lottery as Lamar Fike once said. She was lucky, she was the official one and not Linda or Ann-Margaret.

Here’s a deep thought. The old saying, the camera never lies. Of all the publicly released photos of Elvis and Priscilla,…you never see one photo that clearly shows that Elvis was deeply in love with her. You definitely see it when Elvis is with his mother back in the ’50s. You even see it a bit when he’s with Ann-Margaret. But you never, ever see that look in his eyes when he’s with Priscilla. And there’s a lot of photos of the couple. Never see it. Leads me to think that Marty Lacker and others who were there were telling the truth–Elvis didn’t want to marry her.

And think of this way: the biggest day of a person’s life, especially for women, is the marriage ceremony. Instead it was a ten minute quickie in Vegas, and most of Elvis’ close friends weren’t even invited. That doesn’t sound like a whole lotta love. Especially since they had known each other for well over five years at that point in time when they tied the knot. Also, Priscilla has stated that Elvis wanted a trial separation a couple of months before Lisa Marie was born.

Again, that doesn’t sound like love.

He should’ve married Ann-Margaret. Or Linda. But I think Linda loved him more than Elvis loved her.

So Ann-Margaret is the one that he probably should’ve married.

*Quincy Jones didn’t like him. Eff him.”

And Quincy didn’t know him. B.B. King liked him; James Brown liked him. Muhammad Ali liked him.

Let’s put this whole Elvis was racist thing to bed. No, he wasn’t. He wouldn’t have hired the Sweet Inspirations to be his back ups if he were. He wouldn’t have supported vocalist Roy Hamilton and paid some of his doctor bills when Roy was dying. He didn’t have a whole lot of entertainer friends, but one of them was Sammy Davis Jr.

There’s too many things to easily disprove that Elvis didn’t like blacks, when he did. He wasn’t a person to take political stands in public, so people think he didn’t like them.

Elvis also was the originator of his own sound. When he was first getting popular in Memphis, the blacks thought he sounded white, while the whites thought he sounded black. But he just kept forging his own trail. He respected and liked black gospel and R & B. But he also liked white gospel, country, and pop music as well. He didn’t steal nothing. That’s the haters, the enviers at work. He liked what he liked and when recording, he did his own thing and made the music his own.

I don’t know that things didn’t turn out right for Ann-Margret. She evidently had a long, happy marriage with Roger Smith. I doubt Elvis was ever going to be happy and content. His singing and performing were probably always going to be first before any one woman; from his first moments at SUN and there ever after, he never lived a conventional life. Seems like the heartbreak of losing his mother and his and others’ acceptance of his dependence on pills further set him on a path of inevitability. Is there one point where he may have kicked his habits? I’ve read and reread Peter Guralnick’s two volume bio and it seems Elvis never truly desired to change anything.

Life’s a bitch. It’s sad, the things Elvis never got to achieve, including personal fulfillment, but as I hinted earlier, he had some good times, lived to sing and knew he made some extraordinary music. He also knew of the love millions had for him and his music. I have a friend who I knew was from Tennessee. He told me once about riding home from the market with his mom when she slammed on brakes, hopped out and went to the pasture fence next to the road. The man mowing the pasture drove his tractor over, turned it off, took off his hat and said hello. It was Elvis. He’d dated his mom in school. Elvis bush hogs!! A pretty great life.

I’ve always admired Ann-Margret. She’s seemed like a well grounded person, deferential to her parents and an unapologetic Christian. And a professional with real talent, not just a celebrity.

Quincy Jones was sure Elvis said, “The only thing a ****** is good for is to but my records and shine my shoes”. As we both know, given the detailed exposure of Elvis’ public and private life the comment would be out of character and hasn’t been substantiated. Even if true, Jones should check himself and every utterance he’s made.

I once told a conservative black friend that if I heard he’d yelled, when cut off in traffic, “That white MFer!!” it wouldn’t bother me. Sometimes the moment gets the best of us and we should do better.

Personally, I never imagined Elvis was black, never thought he tried to sound black. Like you say and like he told them the first day at SUN, “I sing all kinds”. If they thought he stole from them, they should have made more.

Knowing Elvis – it’s sort of a privilege, isn’t it?

Relax, I’ll bet the farm on Elvis. Was a bit concerned over some of what you say a few yrs back, but, seems like the Estate wants the name to live beyond this age, and with the new film, are intent to keep him from getting cancelled. They’ll probably make a special case for Elvis anyway. Too good to pass up.

On your previous post Re: the Beatles. Yes they were definitely all that and then some. But solo, and especially vs Elvis, nope, never. Elvis could take them on one at a time.

I’m just not convinced that the Beatles were a great live band, especially vs Elvis. I’m not alone in that perspective either. Think about this: If the Beatles were the most amazing great live band, then when they announced in late ’66 that they weren’t going to tour anymore than there would’ve been more of a public outcry from their fans.

I’m basically paraphrasing the prime noticer Steve himself. Steve wrote an awesome-mazing review of Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink and made mention that the Beatles weren’t all that as a live band; they were of course a great studio producing albums band. And thats what they’re primarily remembered for.

Wow, so you’ve been to Graceland? Did you go during Elvis Week?
Heard it’s supposed to be absolutely amazing.

“I’ve read and reread Peter Guralnick’s two volume bio and it seems Elvis never truly desired to change anything.”

Elvis wasn’t by nature confrontational. This observation repeatedly pops up over and over by those that knew him, and even from Elvis himself. But then, if he had been in his professional life, he’d have gotten better material to sing and he’d have gotten a world tour as well. He was too willing to let th eColonel run the whole show, when he should’ve reminded him, “Hey! I AM the show! Without me, the cash register doesn’t sing!” But he refused for the most part to take charge of his life in most areas.

Interesting, because I just finished Red/Sonny West/Dave Hebler’s Elvis What Happened? All things considering, it’s a good book. It more or less jibes with Guralnick’s thesis. Elvis never wanted to change things, much less himself. Including things that he had to change, like admit that he had a major problem with prescription drugs.

I think as grownups, sometimes fans don’t want to admit that Elvis was what they call today an Alpha Male. That’s why I’ve said I dont see it with the Beatles on stage–I DO get it with Elvis. Something inside him drew women to him like no other entertainer. You see it in video footage of him on stage in the ’50’s, and the ’70’s–that’s not fake, that’s real.

But where the fans don’t want to admit the truth–with all those women after him, the idea that Elvis didn’t have flings. Come on. He was only human. Perhaps because he came out of the ’50’s, and people like to think it was a PG rated era, a more innocent and thus less sexual time. BS. If everywhere this person went, everywhere, and tons of women were trying to get him. Don’t think he didn’t get some every once in a while? Come on.

Some fans don’t want to see the truth.

I think one major reason for Elvis’s staying power is often overlooked—the women liked him. Women are far more bigger consumers of most things, including music. Part of Elvis’ mystique was due to his talent, yes of course, but it was also because of his looks.

No one goes to Buddy Holly’s hometown in the numbers they trek to Elvis’. Buddy Holly was very talented musician. If he’d looked like Elvis, well, there you go. Same with Roy Orbison. The reason he wore his trademark sunglasses he said, was due to his lifelong stage fright. Again, he didn’t look like Elvis.

So in that department, Elvis’ immortality will be fine. He’ll last.

The reason that the Memphis DJ (can’t recall the name, Dewey maybe?) in ’54 first introduced him as “that boy Elvis Presley from Humes High School” was code word: during Jim Crow era, this would alert the kids that Elvis was white, because he attended a white public high school.