Wednesday, July 26 Fame in the eye of the beholder
	By Rob Neyer ESPN.com Speak the following three words aloud: "Hall of Fame." Joe Namath wound down his career with some mediocre years in L.A. Now do the same with these three words: "Hall of Fame." Hear the difference? Same three words, but two different definitions. The first of those generally is used to argue for the best players, those who did the most to help their teams win, generally for a long stretch of time. The second is used to argue for players who might not have Hall-worthy statistics, but who nonetheless made a big impression on people. Lately, this has been the argument for Roger Maris who, if nothing else, certainly was, and is, famous. And it's probably true that the "fame argument" has sometimes been enough to get someone into the Hall. Let us consider two Hall of Famers, one a football player and the other a baseball player. Both played in media capitals. Both enjoyed the fruits of postseason team success, though neither played particularly well in those games. Both saw their careers abbreviated by injury. And frankly, both wound up with reputations that far exceeded their accomplishments on the field. Our two Hall of Famers: "Broadway Joe" Namath and Don "Big D" Drysdale. Let's look at Namath's career ... He finished his career with far more interceptions (220) than touchdown passes (173). Namath finished only two seasons -- 1965 (18/15) and 1969 (19/17) -- with more touchdown passes than interceptions. His career passer rating, 65.5, is fairly poor even by the standards of his time. While it's true that Namath's numbers were dragged down somewhat by the last few years of his injury-riddled career, it's also true that he never led either the AFL or the NFL in passer rating. For a stark contrast, we need look no farther than Len Dawson, Namath's rough contemporary. Dawson's first season as a starting QB was 1962, and he played until 1975. Namath's first season as a starting QB was 1965, and he played until 1977. Dawson played in two Super Bowls, winning one of them. Namath played in one Super Bowl, and of course he won it. Dawson completed 57 percent of his career pass attempts, averaged 7.67 yards per attempt, threw far more touchdown passes than interceptions (239-183), and finished with an 82.6 career passer rating. Namath completed 50 percent of his pass attempts, averaged 7.35 yards per attempt and, as we noted earlier, sported a relatively poor TD/interception ratio and finished with a 65.5 career passer rating. Does Namath really belong in the Hall of Fame with Dawson? Well, perhaps it depends on how seriously you take that word: fame. After all, Joe Namath was then, and remains now, a hell of a lot more famous than Len Dawson. Namath had a nickname, he had a mouth, and he played in New York. Dawson didn't have a nickname, he didn't have much of a mouth, and he played in Kansas City. And to this day, few remember that Dawson was a significantly better player than Namath. Here are some of those stats for both quarterbacks, plus another QB who will remain unidentified for a moment: Name Yards Comp% Yds./Att. TD Int. Rating Dawson 28,711 57.1 7.67 239 183 82.6 Namath 27,663 50.1 7.35 173 220 65.5 Mystery 27,938 59.8 7.37 194 222 75.3 Our mystery QB, while clearly not as good as Dawson, was measurably superior to Namath in nearly every respect, at least statistically. And like Namath, Mr. Mystery also guided his team to a single Super Bowl victory. So why isn't Ken Stabler in the Hall of Fame? Because he wasn't quite as famous as Joe Namath. And then there's Don Drysdale. Look at these two statistical lines: Name Years W - L ERA Drysdale 14 209-166 2.95 Pappas 17 209-164 3.40 Rigorous analysis would suggest that Drysdale was, indeed, a better pitcher than Milt Pappas. Drysdale twice won 23-plus games in a season; Pappas never topped 17 wins in a single season. Drysdale led his league in strikeouts three times, and in innings pitched twice; Pappas led his league in a statistical category just once, topping the National League in shutouts (and Drysdale did that, too). Yet can the difference between their statistics account for the vast difference between their Hall of Fame fortunes? After drawing scant support in his first two years of eligibility, Drysdale became a serious candidate in 1977, his third year of eligibility. And in 1984, with 303 votes needed for election, Drysdale garnered 316 votes. And Pappas? In 1979, his first year of eligibility, Pappas drew only five votes, and dropped off the ballot forever. Name Years W - L ERA Drysdale 14 209-166 2.95 Pappas 17 209-164 3.40 Mystery 15 208-126 2.92 Again, our mystery man was an outstanding player, and in this case was probably better than the man who is in the Hall of Fame. So why isn't Carl Mays a Hall of Famer? Well, in this case it's quite likely that his direct involvement in the fatal beaning of Ray Chapman has played a major role. But the point here is that, based on statistics alone, Drysdale is less deserving of his plaque at the Hall of Fame than others who don't have one. Drysdale was a fine pitcher, in some regards a great one. But it wasn't his statistics that got him elected, it was something more. Drysdale benefited from being a photogenic teammate of Sandy Koufax's, he benefited from playing in the show-business capital of the world, and he benefited from a fondness for the spotlight. In the 1960s, you could hardly turn on your TV without seeing Drysdale on one program or another, from "Leave It to Beaver" to "You Bet Your Life" to "The Brady Bunch." Drysdale certainly wasn't the best pitcher of the 1960s -- he probably wasn't as good as Koufax or Bob Gibson or Juan Marichal -- but he may well have been the most famous. Does all this mean that Joe Namath and Don Drysdale don't belong in their respective sports' Halls of Fame? It all depends on where you put the emphasis when you say, "Hall of Fame." Rob Neyer writes a daily baseball column for ESPN.com		ALSO SEE Baseball: Five who belong in Hall Basketball: Five who belong in Hall Football: Five who belong in the Hall Hockey: Five who belong in the Hall Garber: What is a Hall of Famer? In-depth: The Hall of Fame debate