This is a very common argument in whether players should be Hall of Famers. Do you use this argument? Mind others using it?
Given that each HoF class is voted on according to who is eligible at the time, I’d say it is not a valid argument. So no I don’t use the argument, but I don’t mind other people using it.
Example: Troy Polomalu from the Pittsburgh Steelers (NFL).
Many people (of course most of them Steeler fans) seem to believe Troy is a lock for the HoF. And there’s no question that he’s been a force for the Steelers and has turned the game on many occasions and has been a huge part of their success in the past. He will rightly be considered one of the many Steelers greats. But if you compare his numbers to other safeties already in the Hall, he doesn’t come off too good. Based purely on stats, he probably shouldn’t be in the HoF. But when he’s eligible, whether he gets in or not depends on whether he’s in a weak class at that time. Now say he makes it in because of a weak class and another player becomes eligible that has better stats than Troy did, but he’s in a stronger class of eligible canidates and doesn’t make it in. That’s just they way players are inducted. Now you could make an argument as to whether that’s the correct way to limit players in the HoF, but under the current rules you will have disparities.
(And yes, I realize players are eligible for the HoF for a number of years. It somewhat alleviates the problem but doesn’t solve it)
The argument is always used, in my experience, to support the case of a player who is otherwise obviously not a great candidate. You can always find someone in the HOF who’s kind of like your guy.
In the case of most sports the obvious logical problem is that many players already in the Hall were poor choices and so using them as a continuing standard lowers the bar. If you put in every baseball player greater than Fred Lindstrom in the Hall of Fame you would have to build a new building; there’s 400 players better than Lindstrom who aren’t in the Hall.
That leads to the obvious counter argument which is “well why that guy anyway?” Suppose I argue Ray Durham was just as good and maybe better than Fred Lindstrom (and that is true) so he should be in the Hall. Well, okay, but then you could correctly ask “so why Ray Durham?” Why argue for Durham because he is better than Lindstrom when Doug DeCinces was even better? Why DeCinces but not Tony Fernandez? Okay, why Fernandez instead of Fred McGriff? On and on.
I agree with RickJay. Given that Hall of Fame voters have made mistakes in the past, to assume that this argument is always valid would lead to making these mistakes into precedents, watering down the standards for the HoF. Moreover, even with the new lower standards, mistakes would still be made, leading to further lowering of the standards, and eventually we end up with Darwin Barney, Hall of Famer.
Any legitimate candidate’s supporters can always find better arguments than this. Of course, it is different if you can reasonably compare your guy not to bottom-of-the-barrel Hall of Famers, but to legitimate greats whose credentials nobody would question.
I see it more comparing contemporaries: for example, the QBs in my post were all contemporaries.
It’s a common argument from “big hall” types. I tend to be more of a “small hall” guy, so I don’t tend to use it. I don’t automatically dismiss it, particularly if a the player being compared was voted in rather than selected by the Veteran’s Committee or something of the sort.
(This is only for the Baseball Hall of Fame, which seems to me to be the only one that really provokes intense arguments along these lines).
Just noticed, I never actually listed the QBs! Guys I think should be in:
Plunkett (ONLY eligible multi Lombardi guy not in)
Stabler
Brodie
That just underscores the fact that statistics are largely meaningless for defensive players (except pass rushers). Derrick Brooks was the NFL DPOTY in 2002. He had just 113 tackles (well off even his own personal best), one sack and five picks. The only statistic that really stood out (Donnie Edwards of the Chargers also had five picks at LB, and had far more tackles) was his three defensive touchdowns. The rest of Brooks’ career numbers are similarly bleh; only his career total of 25 picks stands out at the position, as well as his above average longevity.
Does that mean Brooks didn’t deserve the award, or his subsequent Hall of Fame induction? Hell no. He took over games that season; in fact, he took over entire stretches of the season. He is indisputably the best coverage linebacker of all time, probably the best outside linebacker of his generation, and arguably the best linebacker of his generation period (feel free to draw comparisons to Seau, Urlacher, Lewis et al.) He was the true leader of one of the five best defenses in NFL history.
Most of the same stuff is true of Polamalu (or has been at one time or another). Who else really stands out from those Steeler defenses? James Harrison and Casey Hampton, and that’s about it.
Bright: Ironically, last night I was thinking about that very superlative (best coverage LB) because I remember Ditka talking about that not being a strong point for Singletary.
Do you see Lynch or Barber getting in? If so, they’ll have a guy from all 3 levels of the defense.
I think Brooks has a slightly unfair advantage in that regard because Brooks entered the league just when the position was changing (to be fair, he was probably the guy who did most to redefine it). Until the early nineties at least, linebackers were largely downhill players. They stopped the run and rushed the quarterback and if they could cover somebody that was a bonus.
Nowadays the run game is an afterthought, or something you do because your quarterback sucks. So linebackers must cover first and play the run second.
ETA: Lynch is a bit overrated for my money (and I say that as a Buccaneers fan). Spectacular hitter, with surprisingly good ball skills, but he was already a bit of a dinosaur in those days and he was a liability in coverage at times. In part, the Tampa 2 was designed to cover up his deficiencies and if we didn’t have a ferocious four man rush he would have been beaten deep more often.
Barber is a bit of an X-factor. He’s a cornerback whose best skills were mostly non-cornerback abilities: tackling and rushing the passer. I would put him in simply because of his astounding durability and longevity (he made 215 consecutive starts, more than any defensive player except Jim Marshall.
That is to say I wouldn’t put Lynch in but I would put Barber in. I would not be at all surprised if the opposite happens, though. Barber wasn’t really in his prime in 2002 (in fact, he barely won a starting job the year before) so Lynch will be remembered as more of a “historic” player even though he could have been replaced.
Okay, so why these guys?
With Plunkett you at least make a good argument. “The only QB to win the Super Bowl more than once and not be in” is a case. I’m not sure it’s a full case - aside from winning two Super Bowls Plunkett’s career is not spectacular - bnut it’s a case, because
“If X then Y” is a weak-ass argument, but
“Everyone who has ever been like X” is a stronger argument.
That said, let’s look beyond the Super Bowls. What QBs are like Jim Plunkett? According to Football Reference, the most similar QBs are:
Phil Simms
Norm Snead
Joe Ferguson
Tobin Rote
Kerry Collins
Jim Everett
Jim Harbaugh
Ron Jaworski
Roman Gabriel
Ken Stabler
There are some noteworthy names there, but it ain’t exactly Marino, Montana and Brady. I am unconvinced that a player who is quite similar to Kerry Collins or Joe Ferguson is a great choice for the Hall. His case is really those two rings.
You can say the exact same thing about Eli Manning. With Brodie and the Snake: Two top quarterbacks from an era bereft of top QBs. Stabler has a ring, and arguably paved the way for Young, and to lesser extent, Vick.
I have used the argument, but generally my goal is NOT to get a marginal player elected- it’s to PREVENT marginal players from getting elected.
I happen to think there are too many players in most sports Halls of Fame. I’d prefer to reserve induction for elite players.* In my opinion, Frank White does NOT deserve to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. So, you’ll NEVER hear me say “Frank White is just as good as Bill Mazeroski, so you HAVE to vote for him.”
But when Mazeroski was up for consideration, I DID argue, “Frank White’s numbers are almost exactly the same as Bill Mazeroski’s. They’re practically the same player. If you vote for Mazeroski, you pretty much HAVE to induct Frank White. Do you think HE’S a Hall of Famer?”
So, I DO use the OP’s argument, in a way… but I’m more apt to say, “If you don’t think player A belongs in the Hall of Fame, then you shouldn’t vote for player B, either- their numbers are almost the same!”
- Of course, even if we DID stick to elite players, there’d STILL be some imaginary cutoff point… and the same arguments would come up. There’d STILL be someone very good who didn’t quite make the cut, even though his numbers are ALMOST as good as the greats we DID elect.
Astorian-So you use my argument, but in reverse. Cool.
I might or might not make a good Baseball Hall of Fame voter, but I KNOW I’d be a terrible Pro Football Hall of Fame voter.
At least baseball gives us numbers to work with, and the numbers usually DO tell us something useful and valuable about players.
Arky Vaughan is now regarded as one of the all-time elite shortstops, but he wasn’t elected to the Hall of Fame until nearly 40 years after his retirement. Obviously, I never saw him play, but I can look at his numbers and surmise pretty confidently that he’s a worthy Hall of Famer.
But if I had to decide NOW whether an offensive lineman like Jerry Kramer or Ed Budde is a worthy Hall of Famer, how the heck could I judge? There aren’'t any reliable stats. I could watch a lot of old game film, and listen to anecdotes from his contemporaries, but is THAT any way to judge how good a guard or tackle was?
astorian’s approach is a better one, though, because commonality strongly suggests a lack of greatness.
Allow me to use more baseball examples. I think most people will agree that Willie Mays is one of the greatest baseball players who ever lived. How many players were similar to Willie Mays? Well, basically no one. There is really nobody in baseball history much like him; Baseball Reference says Frank Robinson is the most similar player, and really Robinson was very different. The most similar hitter is probably Alex Rodriguez but they played totally different positions.
Now, I think most people would agree that Billy Williams was a hell of a player, but he wasn’t Willie Mays. How many people were like Billy Williams? A few, actually. Dave Winfield’s career kind of looks like Billy Williams’s. So does Andre Dawson’s. B-R names eight players as being more similar to Billy Williams than anyone is to Willie Mays.
Dave Stieb was a pretty good pitcher, actually very good. But he’s definitely not a Hall of Famer. How many pitchers were like Dave Stieb? Lots. Frank Viola, Rick Sutcliffe, Luis Tiant, Kevin Appier… there are lots of pitchers who look quite a lot like Stieb, far more so than anyone looks like Billy Williams. I could name 15 guys, easy, who had careers that look a lot like Dave Stieb’s.
Okay, someone else… I’ll pick another Blue Jay, Jesse Barfield. I don’t even know if Jesse made the ballot, he couldn’t carry Dave Stieb’s jockstrap although he had a monster year in 1986. How many players are like Jesse Barfield? Hell, you could staff the outfields of an entire league with guys who were pretty much like Jesse Barfield.
The more comparisons you can make, the likelier it is a person really ISN’T a Hall of Famer.
Opinions of contemporaries is arguably the best way to do it. If I wanted to know who the best offensive tackles of the 80s were I’d ask Lawrence Taylor and Bruce Smith.
Another of my “reverse” logic arguments, which (obviously) failed.
I LIIKED Catfish Hunter as a pitcher and as a person. I don’t WANT to say anything bad about him.
But when he was up for the Hall of Fame, my take was, “If you elect him, there are a BUNCH of guys you’re going to have to elect. Because there are a BUNCH of pitchers who played around the same time he did, for about as long as he did, and who put up numbers pretty comparable to his.”
Does anyone think Dave McNally and Jim Perry and Milt Pappas are Hall of Famers? Why not? They were contemporaries of Catfish Hunter and their numbers are about as the same as his.
When I say “Luis Tiant and Mike Cuellar were BETTER than Catfish Hunter,” I am not necessarily arguing that they SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. On the contrary, I’m saying Catfish Hunter should NOT be!