Tuesday Morning Thoughts: Hall of Fame

Random thoughts on the Hall of Fame

1. So Kurt Warner made me eat my prediction that he would fall on his ass. Well done Warner. Or should I say, well done Larry Fitzgerald for making Warner look great. Anyway, Warner played a great game. He is a very good QB. But again, he is no Hall of Famer.

2. So what makes a person a Hall of Famer? For me it’s a two pronged approach.

(1 (1) What’s my initial reaction to hearing whether X player is a HOFer?

(2 (2) If he is not based on my reaction, is there supporting statistics/arguments that would make the player a HOFer?

Example 1: So let’s put this system into effect with an example. For instance, is Randy Moss a HOFer? (or for that matter, Peyton Manning, Brady, Ray Lewis).

Step 1: My initial reaction is yes. Randy Moss is definitely a HOFer. I don’t need statistics to back this argument up. I simply remember Moss dominating games. With Moss, you don’t need to know his TD record or receiving stats. Simply, watch a few games of Moss over his tenure (although I would skip the Oakland years) and you will immediately notice that the guy is dominant. One of the best players on the field.

Step 2: No need to go to question 2.

Example 2: Is Tiki Barber a HOFer?

Step 1: My immediate reaction is probably not. I remember watching Tiki play. He was good. But not great. No crazy moves like Barry Sanders. He didn’t have elite speed. He wasn’t a bulldozer. He wasn’t a Walter Payton, Sanders, Brown, or even Sayers.

Step 2: This is where statistics should come in. You could argue that his rushing totals would place him in the HOF. That his career TD totals are comparable to other HOF players. You see the point. Tiki Barber isn’t a HOF, because when you watched him, he rarely seemed special. Maybe for a year or two he was a top 5 back. But what about the remaining years. Since my initial reaction was no, it would take a whole lot to convince me Tiki’s a HOF. Not impossible, but a tough sell.

3. So let’s go back to Warner. Is Warner a HOF? It’s a tough call. But, my immediate reaction is probably not. He was an elite player for about 2 years. When I watched him, I didn’t think HOF. I saw a good QB, with great players around him. When I watched St. Louis play, I saw a HOF in Marshal Faulk and great players in Torry Holt and Bruce. When I see the Cardinals, I see a potential future HOF in Fitzgerald and a great player in Bolden. But, I never find myself saying Warner is great.

Since we’ve dealt with Step 1, is it still possible that Warner is a HOF using criteria # 2? He does have solid statistics. A two time MVP, a Superbowl winner. It’s still pretty tough for me to call him a HOF, but a 2^nd Superbowl might even nudge me in to his HOF column.

4. Why don’t I use statistics when analyzing criteria # 1 (i.e. initial gut reaction)? Well at least for the real sports, football, futbol, basketball and hockey – you don’t need statistics to tell you if a player is great. All you have to do is watch them play. I don’t need statistics to tell me that MJ was a HOF, or that Barry Sanders is a HOF.

5. In addition, statistics can be just as misleading as telling. A guy like Warner will likely not put up the same numbers as Marino simply because Warner came into the league at an older age. Likewise, Drew Brees put up ridiculous numbers this past year. But he isn’t a hall of famer. I’d rather have Manning, even though he put up lower stats this past year. In this day in age, we have so many statistics that it’s difficult to rationalize what they mean. We got a record for most points on a Saturday night game in December by a QB. What the hell does that mean?

Statistics can he helpful. But they shouldn’t be the sole measuring stick for determining HOFer status. Just watch the games. Does Warner look as great as Manning, Brady, Marino, Montana?

6. Football (and for that matter basketball, futbol and hockey) are not baseball. In baseball it makes sense to use statistics as the main barometer of HOFer status. It’s difficult to tell how great Barry Bond’s swing is. The only measure to tell you is whether it goes for a home run. Same for pitching. Sure Randy Johnson’s arm looks great. But, we need the statistics to tell us how great a pitcher he was. We need those ERAs and batting averages. We simply can’t tell that much from the human eye. A batter may have a great looking swing. But it doesn’t matter if he keeps on getting struck out.

With football, I can tell Marino was great by just watching-The quick release and ridiculous speed on his ball. I didn’t need to know Marinos' QB rating to see that he was great.

Let’s move on…who should be in the HOF that isn’t. Or vice versa.

7. Richard Dent should be in the HOF. He was a dominant pass rusher. More importantly he has the statistics to back him up (I believe he is top 10 in all time sacks). How can Dan Hampton be a HOFer and Richard Dent isn’t?

8. Scottie Pippen is a HOF. I realize he isn’t up for candidacy yet. But I’m just saying.

9. I am not sure Michael Strahan is a HOF. Yeah, he has the statistics. But his sacks always seemed manufactured or irrelevant. But maybe his sack total is enough evidence that he was an elite player worthy of the hall.

10. What about Urlacher. I don’t know because I have such a strong bias to the Bears and him. But, my gut tells me he is not. Going to step 2, I guess I would need some convincing.