What does the Hall of Fame mean to you?

[651akathepaul]

I was reading the Bosh is a HOF'er thread and I'm baffled by some of the responses. I suppose it's not completely fair to chastise individuals since it's apparent that what defines a Hall of Fame player differs for most individuals.

When you think about the Hall of Fame and its players, is your criteria heavily based on players before or of comparative stats who got in? Is it based around that players ranking among players and/or his position ranking in his particular era?

I feel like the basketball HOF only muddy's the waters because it's loosely defined as a "significant contribution to the game."

To me the Hall of Fame is the best of the absolute best (Bosh excluded). I try and take the individual's performance of his era and of course its longevity as the basis for my reasoning. After that I look at any other factors that may play into why that player could have been perceived better than they were and why they should not be considered a hall of famer.

An example:

Reggie Miller is NOT a Hall of Famer. One of the greatest shooters ever, but rose to super stardom in the two years where the NBA was thirsty for someone to fill the shoes of the recently departed Jordan. He gained tons of publicity while his Pacers twice went deep into the playoffs. He was easily the most marketable player on that team.

His numbers do not stand out as "one of the greastest ever," which I think the HOF should suggest. Averaged 18/3/3 over his career. Being one of the better shooters in history doesn't make someone a hall of fame player to me.

I love the idea of Bill Simmons' pyramid HOF. An ever-revolving HOF. One that contains only the very best. This question is not exclusive to the NBA. Just the example that I used.

So...What say you?

 

[dipsetgeneral]

Record breaking stats pretty much. Over achievement. Bout it.

 

[mister friendly]

The Hall of Fame in all Sports should basically only be players that are household names or have overwhelming personal accomplishments

But that would make a very boring Hall of Fame process, so its basically fine as it is.

 

[kevin cleveland]

Hall of Fame debates are the bane of my sports existence. Never understood it.

 

[RyGuy45]

I'm old school so it should be just the top-end guys, the greats of the greats.

Sports more or less has:

Bad players
Below average players
Average players
Above average players
Great players
Superstars

The HOF should be the best of the Superstars category (or one could argue all the Superstars category) IMO

Throw in injuries, prime years, postseason success, teammates, etc and we all have our own definitions of what HOFer should be and that's what makes sports fun I guess.

Baseball though is the prime example of continuing to lower the bar each decade where our standards for greatness are evolving. Recent guys like Rice, Blyleven, Sutter, Santo, Dawson, and Goose were fine players but are not HOFers to me and most had insanely low voting totals out of the gate. But they're in now and because they are we will expect more guys on their level, or "close" to their level to get in then.

 

[CP1708]

To me, history of the game.

I like elite of the elite, sure, but there are others I think deserve in as well.

Robert Horry. I've explained a million times, but he altered 4-5-6 Championships with plays he made. He saved seasons, ended series', changed series, he's had double digit defining NBA historical moments. Even without elite numbers.

Melo has a zillion regular season moments, points, etc.
Horry has all his in the playoffs.

To me, I'd put Horry in the HOF before Melo, unless Melo starts to get his own playoff moments here soon. Horry shaped THREE franchises winning multiple championships. Multiple.

Melo got a lot of buckets, Nov-April.

It's not "who is the better player", that's clearly Melo, its who had the bigger impact to the NBA. That, is Robert Horry.

IMO.

 

[finallyfamous]

Do you guys think Pete Rose should be in the HOF?

 

[5am6oody72]

Do you guys think Pete Rose should be in the HOF?

Without question. Baseball writers and HOF need to get off their high horses. There are countless guys in the HOF were POS human beings but it was never brought to light because the media wasn't what it is today. Hell, how many of those guys were going along with/taking part in discrimination against blacks before integration and the Civil Rights movement? That alone is way worse than freaking betting baseball in my book, and yet Rose is vilified.

It would be one thing if he were a fringe player who could go either way with his HOF candidacy, and the gambling thing was keeping him out. But he's one of the greatest players ever.

 

[dmxfury]

He should be but due to his own stupidity and constant lying I'm fine that he isn't. If he would've been honest about the gambling he would be in right now

 

[dland24]

The Hall of Fame should be reserved for the players who were the best of the best during the time they played the game.

And I (as a lot of you know), am very against the idea behind "oh well he has ___ rings, which makes him a HOFer" argument.  When people say Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning are Hall of Famers because they have multiple Super Bowl rings, it makes me laugh.  As if having a couple of rings is the standard qualifications to get it.  A lot of people believe these two to be HOFers, and I think its beyond stupid.  At no point were these QBs ever considered some of the greatest QBs of their generations.....probably not even top 5 QBs.  So why should they get in?

Oh.....and Barry Bonds better eventually get in.  Having an MLB Hall of Fame that doesnt include Barry, invalidates the entire HOF in my opinion.  If he isnt a HOFer, no one is.

 

[CP1708]

The Hall of Fame should be reserved for the players who were the best of the best during the time they played the game.

And I (as a lot of you know), am very against the idea behind "oh well he has ___ rings, which makes him a HOFer" argument.  When people say Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning are Hall of Famers because they have multiple Super Bowl rings, it makes me laugh.  As if having a couple of rings is the standard qualifications to get it.  A lot of people believe these two to be HOFers, and I think its beyond stupid.  At no point were these QBs ever considered some of the greatest QBs of their generations.....probably not even top 5 QBs.  So why should they get in?

Oh.....and Barry Bonds better eventually get in.  Having an MLB Hall of Fame that doesnt include Barry, invalidates the entire HOF in my opinion.  If he isnt a HOFer, no one is.

Problem with you mentioning Ben and Eli is, nobody is saying they get in with 2, the question was, and has been, if they win their THIRD ring, do they enter the conversation.

3 rings for an NFL QB is rare air. And the ones that have 3, are in the Hall. So one of those guys getting a 3rd is not completely crazy to ask the question of whether they should be in a discussion. If they both stay at 2, then hey, they probably won't get in. But if one or both of them reach 3, it's very, very possible at that point, despite your feelings on it.

 

[mez 0ne]

They have a shot to get in with 2 if they can have a few more consistent seasons, plus its moreso how they elevate their game come playoff time. Ben just has bad luck with staying healthy :x

 

[dmxfury]

Both have been in the top 5 of QBs as well but definitely in that 4th or 5th spot. That third ring would be gigantic for both. Regardless I wouldn't be surprised if either did or did not make it, I see both arguments

 

[dland24]

Both have been in the top 5 of QBs as well but definitely in that 4th or 5th spot. That third ring would be gigantic for both. Regardless I wouldn't be surprised if either did or did not make it, I see both arguments.

At no point in their careers have either of them been a top 5 QB.  And if you disagree, care to tell me what seasons either of these two would be rated in the top 5?  Because I cant see a single season for either one.  They are good QBs.  They are not great QBs.  And they certainly are not Hall of Fame QBs.  The Hall of Fame is for players who have had great individual careers.  To this point, neither Eli not Ben have had great individual careers.  Football is the ultimate team sport.  This isnt basketball where rings define your individual legacy.

 

[CP1708]

Their numbers will dwarf Aikman's and with less a supporting cast. Are you demanding Troy be removed from the Hall?

 

[johnnyredstorm]

yes that cowboys team was overrated.

 

[antidope]

Hall of Fames will get devalued over time becuase there is no limit on how many people can get in. If there was it would exlcude some people who dont really deserve to be there but will get in, for example Vince Carter. Everyone who is in the top 30 in scoring is in the HoF and Vince Carter is in the top 30. Theyre going to send him by virtue of that alone, but if there was a number limit, then he would be excluded.

My Knoweldge of the NFL HoF is limited, but if Ben gets in he will no doubt be one of the worst Qbs in there, if not the worst. He doesnt even deserve to go IMO, but again, by virtue of having two rings he will seeing as how so many other 2 ring Qbs are in (I think its all of them except one guy)

 

[dland24]

Their numbers will dwarf Aikman's and with less a supporting cast. Are you demanding Troy be removed from the Hall?

For someone who is as knowledgeable in NFL talk as you are, it shocks me that you are insinuating that statistics from the current time can in any way be compared to statistics of the past.  Its a different game now. 

No, I am not demanding that Troy be removed from the Hall.  Its not just about numbers.  Troy was a Superbowl MVP (Yes I am aware Eli has been twice).  Troy is a three time All-Pro (neither Ben or Eli are even a one time All-Pro).  Troy has more Pro Bowl appearances than Eli and Ben COMBINED (I am fully expecting your tired "oh now pro bowls mean something?" argument, while you completely overlook that pro bowls actually use to mean something).

Bottom line is IMO, Troy is barely a Hall of Famer....and he is much more deserving than Ben or Eli. 

 

[651akathepaul]

This is kind of why I started this thread. Not to debate players, but to gain a perspective of how each of you look at the HOF and what prerequisites or requirements you look for when judging if someone is a HOF player.

People will butt heads and turn blue in the face with their unwavering stances, and that's because they have a completely different outlook on the hall of fame then the guy(s) they are arguing with. It goes nowhere.

 

[dland24]

Hall of Fames will get devalued over time becuase there is no limit on how many people can get in. If there was it would exlcude some people who dont really deserve to be there but will get in, for example Vince Carter. Everyone who is in the top 30 in scoring is in the HoF and Vince Carter is in the top 30. Theyre going to send him by virtue of that alone, but if there was a number limit, then he would be excluded.

My Knoweldge of the NFL HoF is limited, but if Ben gets in he will no doubt be one of the worst Qbs in there, if not the worst. He doesnt even deserve to go IMO, but again, by virtue of having two rings he will seeing as how so many other 2 ring Qbs are in (I think its all of them except one guy)

Totally agree with HOFs being devalued.  You can already see it happening with the Major League Baseball one, albeit because of steroids talk. In the coming years or decade, I think you will see a LOT of players get into the Hall because they have not been associated with steroids. 

Look at this year as a perfect example.  Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were not voted in but Craig Biggio was? 

Say that sentence out loud.  Craig Biggio is a Hall of Famer but Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are not.

How ridiculous is that?  Thats not to take anything away from Biggio.  He was a nice player.  But he was a career .280 hitter.  I would say he is a borderline HOFer at best, but I would personally lean towards no.  But the fact that he had the career he had, without any steroid accusations, makes these voters put him in.  At no point was he a top 10, 15 or even top 20 player in the Major Leagues.  He wasnt one of the best at the time, but he is now to be thought of as one of the best of all time?  Silly IMO. 

 

[dland24]

This is kind of why I started this thread. Not to debate players, but to gain a perspective of how each of you look at the HOF and what prerequisites or requirements you look for when judging if someone is a HOF player.

People will butt heads and turn blue in the face with their unwavering stances, and that's because they have a completely different outlook on the hall of fame then the guy(s) they are arguing with. It goes nowhere.

You are right.  There is no point in arguing since it isnt defined what makes a Hall of Famer and what doesnt.  There are people here that I have argued with at length in the past that say that 3 Superbowls automatically make you a Hall of Famer....and 2 gets you strong consideration.  That to me is ridiculous. 

Perfect example.  Alex Smith.  Was it inconceivable that he could have won the Superbowl in 2011?  No.  A few stupid ST fumbles cost him a Superbowl IMO.  Lets say the 49ers won it all in 2011.  And if Alex won the superbowl, he likely wouldnt have been replaced in 2012.  Lets say he wins it again in 2012 (look I know these are hypotheticals, but they really werent THAT far off from actually happening).

Is Alex Smith now in the conversation for Hall of Fame?  Of course not!!  So why is team success (especially in football), something that is used to build a player's Hall of Fame case? 

Hall of Fame inductions should be based on individual achievements, not team achievements.

 

[CP1708]

It's both, tho.

 

[dland24]

It's both, tho.

Well if its both, how can you argue that Ben is a Hall of Famer?  His list of individual accomplishments and accolades is almost non existent.

 

[dmxfury]

At no point in their careers have either of them been a top 5 QB.  And if you disagree, care to tell me what seasons either of these two would be rated in the top 5?  Because I cant see a single season for either one.  They are good QBs.  They are not great QBs.  And they certainly are not Hall of Fame QBs.  The Hall of Fame is for players who have had great individual careers.  To this point, neither Eli not Ben have had great individual careers.  Football is the ultimate team sport.  This isnt basketball where rings define your individual legacy.

For quick comparison, say Peyton and Tom are locks from 07-13. Rodgers from 10-13 is there. Brees is there probably every year from 07-13 (excluding 10 perhaps). Ben's stats are better than Eli's and I follow him more so is say 07, 09, 10, maybe last year are the years he may be in that 5th spot (or fourth if before 2010). I'm not saying he should be a HOFer though. And comparisons of passing stats to the 90s isn't nearly as egregious as comparing stats to pre 78. That really gets me going


That is kinda a cool idea to have a set number of spots and then you have to move people out to put others in. Definitely would get the best of the best

 

[mez 0ne]

For quick comparison, say Peyton and Tom are locks from 07-13. Rodgers from 10-13 is there. Brees is there probably every year from 07-13 (excluding 10 perhaps). Ben's stats are better than Eli's and I follow him more so is say 07, 09, 10, maybe last year are the years he may be in that 5th spot (or fourth if before 2010). I'm not saying he should be a HOFer though. And comparisons of passing stats to the 90s isn't nearly as egregious as comparing stats to pre 78. That really gets me going


That is kinda a cool idea to have a set number of spots and then you have to move people out to put others in. Definitely would get the best of the best

Exactly, there were several points in which Eli or Ben were on the fringe of top 5 (not in the class of Brady, Peyton, Rodgers etc but in that 2nd tier).

...and the way Eli and Ben won in the playoffs certainly has a big impact on voting, Eli game winning drive vs an undefeated team, and beating the Pats a second time having one of the best seasons from start to finish two seasons ago. Big Ben game winning drive in the Superbowl. Those are big deals come HOF voting.

But I wouldn't consider either a HOF at this point (hard to argue for any active QB not named Peyton or Brady). A 3rd ring would def cement it but a few more consistent seasons out of both of them and you can easily make the case. You have to really evaluate things after careers end.