Possibly-OT: Who gets your Hall of Fame vote?

Submitted by canzior on February 27th, 2020 at 1:52 PM

Any sport, college or pro... what is your best case to put a fringe HOF player in?

Conversely who is someone who is in, but if you had the power to remove...who and why?

 

People were debating Eli Manning when he retired. He's certainly an interesting case.

Mike Vick I think deserves to be in from an "impact on the game" standpoint.

If I could remove anyone...Cris Carter. #1 He's awful on TV #2 he was a Buckeye (kinda j/k) #3 i think he was a good, but not all time, one in a generation talent at WR. 

Brian Griese

February 27th, 2020 at 2:07 PM ^

Sabermetrics bare out Lou Whitaker should have been in the hall of fame a long time ago.
 

Sticking with a name everyone will recognize, I have zero idea why Joe Namath is in the hall of fame. Granted, the passing game of the 1960’s is night and day compared to what we have today, but look at some of these (career combined AFL/NFL) numbers!

  • 50.1 career completion percentage 
  • Passer Rating of 65.5
  • 173 TD vs. 220 INT!
  • Threw over 20 INT’s in a season 5x in 13 seasons! 
  • 4x led the league in INT

I guess he just goes to show what market you play in and personality will do for you. Also, I am NOT a believer of the ‘QB wins’ stat but if you are, Joe Namath had a career losing record in pro football as well. 

Magnus

February 27th, 2020 at 2:12 PM ^

I'm not joking when I say I've wondered since I was a kid why Joe Namath was such a big deal. I didn't grow up in the Namath era, but I read a lot of books, watched highlights, looked at stats, etc. when I was a kid, and the hype vs. play on the field never matched up. If an 11-year-old can figure that out, then you would think Hall of Fame voters could, too.

He's basically in because he guaranteed a win in Super Bowl III and it happened. That's it.

shoes

February 27th, 2020 at 3:39 PM ^

I had that as well. It was known as Tudor electric football. The players used to have bristles on the bottom. I spent hours working on one where it could go around end make a 90 degree turn and gain about 10 yards before it would turn again.

Rams

February 27th, 2020 at 2:27 PM ^

Played in New York, guaranteed a win in Super Bowl III as a big underdog, got the win (the first for AFL).  I agree with you.  I just wish he had finished his career with the Jets.

I'm assuming his appearance on the Brady Bunch pushed him over the top with the HoF voters.

shoes

February 27th, 2020 at 2:50 PM ^

I will give a serious answer as well. Joe's stats even adjusted for era, do not measure up. He was a highly mobile QB in HS and when he first got to Alabama; whose knees were nearly shot by the time he got to the NFL and he reinvented himself as a pocket passer. A few points:

1) His peak (and overall career) were pretty short. Roughly 1967-1969 or so.

2) He had an outstanding and accurate arm, and could flick it without having to plant and use his whole body. The accuracy numbers are a bit misleading as he threw it deep more than most and also threw it away a lot (because of his lack of mobility), he could not buy time like say Aaron Rodgers. He was not constantly dumping the ball off as modern QBs do.

3) His yards per attempt reflect this: 8.2 and 8.3 in 1967-1968 despite completion percentages of only 52.5 and 49.2 those two years.

4) There were some other very good players on his best teams but overall the Jets' talent did not come close to that of the Colts team his Jets beat in the SB, or the Raiders or Chiefs teams from the AFL. Without Joe his teams would have not been competitive. 

5) With a better franchise, he would have won a lot more. This is highly subjective, but with equal talent apart from QB, at his peak, I would have taken him over any other QB of his era.

6) His historical importance is very significant in two key instances, with respect to the AFL and giving credibility to the league. The Jets signing him in direct competition with the NFL at a then astronomical $400,000. shook the football world. Then as a 17-18 point underdog leading the Jets to a decisive win over the Colts, solidified the notion that the old AFL could compete with the old NFL.

Those who say he is not HOF worthy have strong and credible arguments, but I did want to provide the other side of it.

FrozeMangoes

February 27th, 2020 at 2:37 PM ^

Lou Whitaker was/is top 10 at his position all-time.  Second baseman get screwed by getting compared to the other positions offensively.   Avg career WAR of 2B in the hall is 69 and Lou has 75, which is 7th all time at the position.

He has a higher OPS+ than Roberto Alomar and Biggio, while having a significantly higher dWar (16.6) than either Alomar (3.3) or Biggio (-2.9).

mgobaran

February 27th, 2020 at 2:12 PM ^

Votes should be case by people who played the game, possibly only peers (people who played while the person in question played), so it's not really my call. 

BUT!

They need to answer one question in my book. Are they Hall-of Fame worthy?

  • If the answer is yes, then yes.
  • If the answer is no, then no.
  • If the answer is possibly, or maybe, then no.

TheCube

February 27th, 2020 at 2:15 PM ^

Personally think McNabb should be in especially if Vick gets in. For all of Vick’s athleticism, McNabb always came out on top but didn’t get the respect bc Philly. 
 

 

HarboSchembaugh

February 27th, 2020 at 6:04 PM ^

Vick will never be in the HoF.  His rushing records are already broken by Lamar, so he isn't even the best at what he was supposedly the best at.

He doesn't rank top 50 all time in any passing stats.  He was a full time starter in only 4 of his 14 seasons, all in Atlanta.  10 games over 500 as a starter.  Won 2 playoff games.  Only won over 8 games one time.  He really is not that good, and he's a scumbag.  It would be shameful for the NFL to put him in.

"According to court documents, from time to time Vick and his cohorts "rolled" the dogs: put them in the pit for short battles to see which ones had the right stuff. Those that fought got affection, food, vitamins and training sessions. The ones that showed no taste for blood were killed -- by gunshot, electrocution, drowning, hanging or, in at least one case, being repeatedly slammed against the ground."

Absolutely depraved shit.

1VaBlue1

February 27th, 2020 at 2:15 PM ^

Pete Rose and Sweet Lou would be in.

Would give considerable leeway to Bill Laimbeer, also.  He doesn't have shiny stats over two decades, but he largely changed the game as a legit center that you had to guard all the way out beyond the 3-pt line.  Also, every team in basketball would have taken him in an instant, despite the hate they espoused.

Special Agent Utah

February 27th, 2020 at 6:00 PM ^

Rose should never be allowed in as long as he’s alive. There was 1 rule, 1 fucking rule, that he had to follow in order to not be banned for life from baseball and he couldn’t do it. 

What’s more, he spent 15 years continuing to lie about it and making himself look like some innocent victim, dragging Bart Giamatti and Peter Ueberroth’s names through the mud at every opportunity, before he sort of came clean in order to sell a book. 

If he’d admitted his acts and then did all he could to make amends for everything, then he would have probably been in long ago. Instead he’s shown zero remorse for what he did and he’s used his own scandalous acts to make a quick buck at every turn. 

You can debate steroid users being in with some merit, but not Rose. The rule was clear and ironclad, as were the consequences for breaking it and there’s no exception for a player that holds the all time hits record.
 

He made his choice and I applaud baseball for actually sticking to their guns for once instead of doing the easy thing and letting him in to pacify all the whiner fans and media people who claim “Awwwwww, come on. He’s suffered enough.” 

stephenrjking

February 27th, 2020 at 2:18 PM ^

Vick doesn’t belong and Cris Carter does.

Personal beef here as a Barry fan but I’d remove Terrell Davis. I’d add Lou Whittaker.

And I’m tired of this inconsistent steroid-era stuff with baseball. Bonds and Clemens are jerks that I don’t like that deserve to be in the Hall. 

canzior

February 27th, 2020 at 2:23 PM ^

I think Vick may have been the most entertaining player to ever play in the NFL. In a way that no one had ever been before. First $100 million contract...first player to do it twice...redemption story that people tend to love...Any time you have a phenomena in your sport for nearly a decade...and what's the saying "can you tell the story of the NFL without this person?"  From 2002-2008, you couldn't.

Magnus

February 27th, 2020 at 2:28 PM ^

A friend of mine once said, "It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good." I know that, too, can be taken out of context, but I think that's an argument for Michael Vick. No, he wasn't the greatest quarterback, but he sold a ton of jerseys, got people to watch a lot of games, pushed the game further for black and athletic quarterbacks, and was a pretty good player. 

mgobaran

February 27th, 2020 at 2:45 PM ^

I flip/flop on Ozzy. He has the career longevity, good to great stats. Lots of wins. 2008 probably should have solidified it when he replaced a HoF goalie, and took that team to the cup. But was he ever one of the top 3 goalies any given year during his career? He's borderline and according to my criteria above, borderline = no.

Magnus

February 27th, 2020 at 2:40 PM ^

The game has changed since he played. If Aikman were playing today, I think he would be like Matt Ryan. Ryan isn't an all-time great, but when you look at his stats, he's throwing for 4,500 yards and almost 30 touchdowns a year (just rough estimates).

I don't know if Matt Ryan is a Hall of Famer with his current resume, but if he had those stats AND three Super Bowl wins, he would sure as heckfire be in the HOF after retiring.