Sports history: Eye-opening quarterback stats, Pee Wee Reese as a top 100 player, WAR tips, when Brady became Brady, top five defensemen of all-time, Roger Craig, Carlos Delgado, Fernandomania

Thursday 12/4/25

Longtime Minnesota Vikings quarterback (with a mid-career stop in New York with the Giants) Fran Tarkenton had a most interesting career. He played from 1961 to 1978. Or, from the time of Roger Maris's big 61 homer season to the time of the Clash's third album. He won the MVP in 1975, his age thirty-five season, leading the league in touchdowns for the only time in his career.

He then led the league in completion percentage for the only time in his career in his age thirty-seven season in 1977. Then, in his final season in 1978, he led the league in passing yards for the only time in his career, and, alas, in interceptions for the only time in his career. Singular.

Here is my compact guide if you'd like to accumulate WAR in baseball:

Be a second baseman.

Be a pitcher on a bad team.

Don't be a catcher.

Walk a lot.

Allow me to repeat that: Walk a lot.

Speaking of WAR: Pee Wee Reese retired with 68.5 career WAR. As I've written here, I believe Reese is one of the most underrated players in baseball history. He was a lot better than almost anyone now--I'm talking baseball historians--gives him credit for.

But here's something to keep in mind: Reese lost three full seasons to wartime service. He had a campaign of 6.2 WAR before his service began, and a season of 6.1 upon his return. I think we can then safely say that had Reese played those three years, his career WAR would be at least 85. You're talking about one of the top 100 players of all-time, which is what I've maintained that Reese is. With 85 WAR, more people would think this thing that only myself and a few others think now. It wouldn't be a hard sell either. That number would really jump out.

The members of a hockey history discussion forum that I follow are doing a voting project to rank the eighty best defensemen in hockey history. This would be my top five:

1. Bobby Orr

2.Ray Bourque

3.Doug Harvey

4.Denis Potvin

5.Eddie Shore

As I wrote for Sports Illustrated, I believe that Bourque had more career value than any defensemen, including Orr. But now we're getting into nuance, which people tend to loathe.

Potvin was a fantastic player. Could do it all at the highest level. One of the inner circle greats of the game. Some of my choices would likely prove controversial. I'm not, for example, as high on Nicklas Lidstrom as just about everyone else is. I don't think he was a driver and I see him as less impactful than quite a few others. I believe people make too much of Chris Pronger, and that Al MacInnis has a legit claim as a top ten defenseman.

Brad Park was a fine passer, but I feel like he's almost assisted himself by his "never won a Norris because of Bobby Orr" narrative. Ironically, if he had won one, he might not stand out like he does to hockey historians who love to note this fact.

Cale Makar is already closer to the top ten than one might think. He's already much higher up than, say, a Scott Stevens, who had a strange career. He was a pretty good offense defenseman at the start, then his offensive game went away entirely--or he wasn't interested in pursuing it further, perhaps--and he became wholly a defensive defenseman. It's a bit tough with Larry Robinson because he was so often on such stacked teams, but I think you have to give it to him. He's probably top ten, too.

People undervalue Larry Murphy, and also Borje Salming to a degree. Red Kelly is top ten. I also have Paul Coffey in the top ten, and I'd rather have had him than Lidstrom, which is a statement to get you court marshaled with hockey history types, but that's how I feel.

Coffey made such a mark when he was at his best. Talk about impacting games. People want to sardonically snap, "Yeah, by allowing goals against," but there was a time when the likes of Wayne Gretzky and Paul Coffey may have been a more impactful duo than even Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. I've also still never seen anyone skate like Coffey, and the only defenseman who passed as well as him was Bourque.

You could say I'm historically down on Slava Fetisov, whereas others think he might be better than any defenseman save Orr. When I watch the Soviet Union's famed Green Unit, I see a clear hierarchy of talent, with Sergei Makarov and Vladimir Krutov being the top players by some distance. To me it's outrageous that Krutov isn't in the Hall of Fame. I've seen games with Fetisov over a bunch of years, too, well before he came to the NHL.

Five finalists have been announced by the relevant committee--all of these damn voting committees--responsible for players from past eras and management types: Bill Belichick, Robert Kraft, Ken Anderson, Roger Craig, L.C. Greenwood. A maximum of three can be elected.

First off: I have no use for owners in the Hall of Fame. Robert Kraft should never get in, in my view. The way he's gone about trying to get in, too, is just gross. Shameless. Belichick will obviously get in right now. I saw this post today on social media: "His speech is either going to be hilariously short, or a filibuster consisting of the longest tribute to football the world has ever seen."

People are such losers. They try so hard to get attention for themselves with their contrived social media posts that they'll warp themselves into a permanent state of stupidity. All just to try and make others think they're clever. Chances are that you're not. There's nothing you can do about that. Try and be sensical instead.

Belichick will get inducted this year, and his speech will be warm, gracious, witty. He'll talk about his father, his talk with respect--even reverence--for the NFL and its history. He'll even speak glowingly about Kraft, whom he doesn't like. He'll charm everyone--because he can do that when he wishes, and he'll want to on this stage--and he'll get rave reviews. He isn't going to get up on the podium and mumble and walk off like it's a Patriots press conference circa, well, 2000-2020.

Someone like this only uses the word "filibuster" because you started seeing it on social media some years ago. It became one of those words or phrases that for such meant, "I'm smart! Look what I can say!" It's like "inflection point." Do you think anyone who uses that term knows what it means? Do you think anyone who uses it once doesn't also use it 100 times and work it in whenever they can?

Same goes with "singular," which people think is the smarter person's version of "single," just as "aesthestic" is the smarter person's version of "artistic." Something in their tiny brains tells them, "Kick it up a notch, chief."

I don't like Belichick. He stands for things (cronyism, nepotism, womanizing, cutting corners, treating people poorly) that are the opposite of what I'm about. But that doesn't mean I have to be a moron about him.

That leaves two. Those three players are each highly deserving, with Craig being the most so. He should have been in years ago. I think you'd find that most people who watched football in the 1980s would assume he already was in. His 1985 season was a campaign for the ages, in which he had over 1000 yards rushing and receiving. Yards were harder to come by back then. Craig went over 2000 total yards again in 1988 and probably should have won the MVP that year. It's borderline mystifying that he wasn't a Hall of Famer "all along."

I've said I don't know how many times over in these pages that Ken Anderson should be in the Hall of Fame, so hopefully the oversight is redressed this year. Quarterback rating, like WAR, is a flawed stat. Doesn't mean you just disregard it, though. Proceed with caution, statistically speaking, I say. (But that's true of many stats.) But here's a Ken Anderson stat for you: He led the league in quarterback rating four times. Dan Marino did so once. Tom Brady, twice.

I like L.C. Greenwood a lot, too. He's the third best player here--but definitely deserving of induction--but I could see him being the sentimental choice and, as such, the first choice among the players.

Unfortunately, I could see the committee going for some thematic BS and making it so Kraft and Belichick go in together, which would screw over these players who did it on the field and deserve the honor far more than Robert Kraft.

I downloaded videos from TV broadcasts of two games between the Boston Bruins and the Montreal Canadiens from Bobby Orr's prime: A December 5, 1970 affair, and one from January 16, 1971, both in Montreal. The Bruins' offense from that 1970-71 season may be the best in NHL history, or certainly was until the high-flying 1980s Oilers came along. Such things are treasures to me. I suspect very few others would care, but they do have TikTok and Pat McAfree and the like.

Did you know that there's a WFAN subreddit in which grown men speculate--regardless of not knowing the meaning of the word--about the interoffice relationships of the WFAN hosts? Fifty-seven-year-old men gossipy worse than sixth grade girls at a lunch table. The parasocial knows no limits. These are mostly just meatheads these hosts. Large-bodied bags of gas.

I recall Steve Somers from WFAN reading the baseball box scores in the middle of the night. I'd have on the radio when we lived in Connecticut, lying there in bed, and he'd actually just read the box scores to fill up the time of his shift.

At least it wasn't hot takes. Trust me on this: Anyone who says "hot takes" seriously," or remarks, "So and so has shitty takes," is an idiot who can't offer you, anyone else, or themselves anything of value in this life. Avoid them. Don't give them your time. Don't give them a thought. They are themselves thoughtlessness incarnate. They don't get it, they will never get it, they are incapable of getting it. They're just boobs. Boobs who can't realize that the ultimate hot take, as such, and the ultimate hot action, I suppose, would be a matter of actually being intelligent and saying something intelligent. That's the shockeroo now.

Drake Maye talk in New England has centered on his physical gifts, which means many people then talk about Tom Brady's mental gifts, like he was just someone who outsmarted defenses and was the Tin Man otherwise without his brain.

This kind of thing bothers me. People do this with Wayne Gretzky, too, and Larry Bird to an extent. As if one's accuracy in throwing a football wasn't a physical gift. Also, Brady threw lasers and ropes. Few have ever had more zip on the ball. But no one was more accurate. And as if vision isn't a physical skill. People think it's just jumping a certain height, running a certain speed, or throwing something a certain distance. As for hockey, I have never seen anyone more physically gifted than Wayne Gretzky. Watch him make a backhanded flip pass over one stick and then under another. Do you think that's wishing the puck to end up on that player's tape? How is that not physical? And mental. Was Gretzky the fastest? No. But he was plenty fast. Was he the quickest? Yes, he was, and that's more important than being fast.

People also think that Brady became what they think of as Brady in 2007 or else in the 2010s. I will tell you when Brady became full-on Brady: 2003. The league was different back then. Playing quarterback was different. It was much harder than it is now. You know when you began seeing examples of Brady being full-on Brady? A game-long flash, for instance? Not sustained, but evident. It was in 2001 in the Snow Bowl game. That Brady was on par with 2016 Brady. They had him throw on just about every down in the snow in the second half. He was virtuosic.

"Yeah, Brady just outsmarhhhted them..."

Was probably a bit more than that.

I've been meaning to touch on this Contemporary Era baseball Hall of Fame ballot, which strikes me as unfortunate. I'm tired of people like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens taking up spots that should go to someone like Dwight Evans, who, for some reason, isn't included. I feel like we're doing games with Bonds and Clemens. They're in or they're out. Can we just make up our minds please? Putting them on the ballot doesn't feel sincere to me. Then you're just wasting slots.

But worse is the inclusion of Fernando Valenzuela, who is plainly so far away from being a Hall of Famer. You can name fifty other pitchers and quite a few from his own era who are more deserving. If you know your stuff at all--the rudiments of baseball history, of statistical thresholds, or evaluating someone's career in any way that allows you to distinguish the great from the good from the average--then you know that Valenzuela isn't a Hall of Famer. Is this meant to be in good faith? If it is, then that means the committee has no damn clue and is just ignorant in terms of Baseball History 101, Stats 101, Hall of Fame 101.

Dale Murphy is also not a Hall of Famer no matter how much people are trying to make him one. He had six good seasons. They weren't upper level elite seasons. All-timer seasons. He had no all-timer seasons. Don Mattingly is also not a Hall of Famer, and no, he isn't similar to Kirby Puckett who was a much more dynamic player with a rich postseason legacy to boot.

As for the rest of them: Yes, Jeff Kent should be in, and maybe this is the year. Not that I'd be excited about it. And Carlos Delgado is absolutely a Hall of Famer, and he shouldn't have fallen this far.

But the world being the world, when I went on social media after the ballot was announced I saw many people saying that Valenzuela is a definite Hall of Famer and it was a crime against humanity blah blah blah that he wasn't already, because that's what you get in a world where everyone thinks they know and there's no one who does to tell them that they don't--or else that person has been banished from society--and not one of these people has so much as looked at Valenzuela's actual statistics from year to year and for his career, or, if they did--fat chance, but if they did--didn't understand what they were seeing. It's really disrespectful to hve him on that ballot.

I like Valenzuela. I enjoyed watching him pitch. He was good for the game. But what are we doing here? Are we going to have Bruce Hurst or Frank Tanana on one of these ballots?