WS Chronicle

Obviously, I love sports, and they have played a big part in my life up to this point. There are several things that have bothered me about the four professional sports leagues, but one thing in particular sits above them all, and that’s the hall of fame process for the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB. 

What I have noticed is there has been a trend where there have been players who are borderline hall of fame players, but they get in because of other reasons outside of their numbers and play on the field. Reasons such as a player’s public perception as being a nice guy, or playing on a dynasty type team, or a player that has a good story to tell.  There are other reasons but those are the ones that immediately come to mind. 

When it comes to the last 25 years or so, there have been several players who have been voted into their respective hall of fames that I honestly don’t believe they should have been. There are also current players who seem to have a hall of fame trajectory that I don’t feel meets the criteria and I want to share my thoughts. 

Here are my criteria for hall of fame players of any sport. First and foremost, you have to have the numbers. Not necessarily longevity but you have to have the numbers. Players such as Terrell Davis, Sterling Sharpe, Gayle Sayers, Aaron Donald and Luke Kuechly all fit this bill. They were stud players who put up remarkable numbers during their playing time, but they either suffered a career ending injury or retired early during their prime years. 

On the flip side, you have players like Frank Gore who played for 16 years, amassing hall of fame caliber numbers, but he was never one of the top backs in the league outside of one or two seasons. He was able to rush for 16,000 yards, placing him third all-time behind Emmitt Smith and Walter Payton and ahead of guys like Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, and LaDainian Tomlinson. 

No one in their right mind would ever consider Gore a better running back than any of the players listed above, but he will more than likely be voted into the NFL Hall of Fame at some point in time. I know he has the numbers, but we have to take into account the fact that he wasn’t an all-time great player. Gore was good and sometimes very good but was never great, so in my eyes, he is not a hall of fame player. 

Another player that fits this mold is Eli Manning. This was Manning’s first year on the ballot and there was talk from analysts that he has a chance to be a first ballot candidate. In what world is Eli Manning a first ballot hall of fame player? Manning wasn’t as good as Gore, compared to other top players at their respective positions. The thing that will get Manning over the top is his last name and his two Super Bowl wins.   

Outside of having the numbers, you must be one of the main reasons why a team wins, or one of the top players at your position. This has been one of the more debatable metrics when it comes to hall of fame discussions. Numbers tell one story, but intangibles can tell another. There are players who aren’t the top players on the team that contribute just as much to the success as the best player. Then there are players who think they contribute just as much as the star player, but they actually don’t. 

The player who comes to mind when I think about intangibles is Draymond Green. Green was an important piece of the Golden State Warriors dynasty of the last decade. My argument is they would have won at least three of those championships without him. In my opinion, Golden State would have won their first three rings without him, but he did contribute a lot for the fourth.   

I think people have elevated Green to the hall of fame status because of the team he played for, because his numbers don’t scream hall of fame. To me, a hall of fame player would be hall of fame caliber no matter what team he played for. Green has an inflated sense of self, and he owes Steph Curry and Klay Thompson big time.   

I have heard people say he is a first ballot hall of fame player, and I think that’s crazy. I think Draymond is a good player, but he is nowhere near a hall of fame player. Hell, he is several levels below a player like Dwight Howard and he isn’t in the hall of fame yet. Green impacts the game outside of the numbers, but he is not a hall of famer. 

Then we have players who have a nice story to tell, or they were just “good guys,” and the player who comes to mind when I think about this is Kurt Warner. Warner has a Super Bowl trophy and two MVP trophies, but outside of a couple more good seasons, that was it for Warner. He had six seasons with the Giants and Cardinals that were forgettable. You can’t build a hall of fame resume with only four or five good years and five or six bad years. If he would have been injured, that’s one thing, but he was a backup. 

Lastly, I like to use the eye test. I know it’s not that reliable, but it works most often. The eye test is usually the metric I use when I am waffling back and forth about a player. Green and Manning don’t pass the eye test either, so that is yet another reason I don’t think they are hall of fame players. 

My wish is that the voters become more strict on the voting of eligible players. I actually would prefer voters to be as critical as baseball writers when they discuss PED users in MLB.  

I doubt things will ever change but I can hope.