Am I a hall of famer? (Active players only)

[nomar]

Wilson's numbers are pedestrian but has a chance based on his reputation as a "winner." Only 1 SB, but Seattle was one of the teams that defined the sport in the 2010s and won a lot of games and he was the QB.

I would not have him in though. If they ran Marshawn Lynch at the goal line, probably.

I listed his numbers above. They're better than you think. 4th all-time in passer rating.

 

[nomar]

Montana won 4 Super Bowls and 2 MVPs. Kelly won a lot of games but couldn’t get the big one.

Well yeah. My point was that you can't just go on stats.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Well yeah. My point was that you can't just go on stats.

I wasn’t just going off stats to begin with, just in that scenario comparing Kelly and Wilson. Take away the modernization of the passing game, Russ was way better taking care of the ball, and as we’ve said, 4th in passer rating all time is quite impressive.

Similar to Paul George, 9 all stars (pro bowls) is a big number. Herbert and possibly Lawrence will pass hum eventually, but I don’t think that means much. Herbert imo is a generational talent, and Lawrence isn’t too far off either.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Not saying he didn't deserve to get in. My point was that 3,000 hits used to be the marker and that Puckett's unfortunate deterioration helped usher in a new era of people looking at things qualitatively as well as quantitatively. I wasn't suggesting he's the least deserving member. He's no Harold Baines.

(It also helped that Puckett was regarded as a good guy. When in fact he may well not have been so swell of a guy.)

I look at as 3000 was the marker for guaranteed to get in. Not getting 3000 hits wasn't a criteria for entry- Ruth, Gehrig, Williams are good arguments for not needing 3k hits to get in.

 

[Fan1978]

This is the tier list for baseball

Tier 1: First Ballot Locks
1. Mike Trout
2. Justin Verlander
3. Clayton Kershaw
4. Max Scherzer

Tier 2: Probably 1st Ballot
1. Mookie Betts
2. Freddie Freeman
3. Aaron Judge
4. Shohei Ohtani
5. Bryce Harper
6. Gerrit Cole
7. Juan Soto
8. Ronald Acuna Jr.

Tier 3: Probably HoF
1. Joey Votto
2. Paul Goldschmidt
3. Nolan Arenado
4. Manny Machado
5. Jose Altuve
6. Jose Ramirez
7. Cory Seager
8. Jose Ramirez

Tier 4: Borderline HoF/Has work to do
1. Jacob deGrom
2. Andrew McCutchen
3. Chris Sale
4. Giancarlo Stanton
5. Marcus Semien
6. Francisco Lindor
7. Christian Yelich
8. Alex Bregman
9. J.T. Realmuto
10. Trea Turner

Slow your role on acuna, he is more likely to be out of game than hof. He is rumored to have a right elbow issue that could end his career. Although the most talented guy in majors, he has a horrendous attitude and refuses to hustle on a daily basis. Now out 2 out of 3 years, hof not in his future. He is not a winner. Hurley would bench him.

 

[Deepster]

Montana won 4 Super Bowls and 2 MVPs. Kelly won a lot of games but couldn’t get the big one.

He brought his team to four straight super bowls on a high powered offense (at the time). He was better in his time than Wilson was in his. For sure.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

He brought his team to four straight super bowls on a high powered offense (at the time). He was better in his time than Wilson was in his. For sure.

Wilson’s Passer Rating is miles better and went to 2 Super Bowls himself, winning 1. Way less turnovers.

 

[CTBasketball]

After the passing of a legit hall of famer (RIP Larry Allen)
I got to thinking about current players, across the major sports, who are as "on the fence" as you can get.

Here are my 3 (I don't really know hockey)
1. Giancarlo Stanton
2. Russell Wilson
3. Al Horford

Are these guys hall of famers???
(In my opinion, only Russ will make it)

You can respond to mine, or post some "on the fencers" of your own. Try to keep it to active players, just for ease of process.

Russ Wilson might not be.

Some of the mentions of Chris Sale are hilarious, he’ll be off the first ballot faster than Giancarlo. Some other good, debatable ones are:

• Rafael Devers, needs some accolades + better stats. But he is young, currently a 21 WAR.
• Frank Gore, might be in more comfortably than others, but who knows.
• Draymond Green, that’s an interesting one.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

He brought his team to four straight super bowls on a high powered offense (at the time). He was better in his time than Wilson was in his. For sure.

He had one of the most loaded offenses with which to work. Kelly is a bit over-hyped in my book. I have no problem with him being in the Hall, but Russell has been just as good. He'll, McNabb's numbers are similar to Kelly"s.

 

[Deepster]

He had one of the most loaded offenses with which to work. Kelly is a bit over-hyped in my book. I have no problem with him being in the Hall, but Russell has been just as good. He'll, McNabb's numbers are similar to Kelly"s.

I think you made my point.

In 15 years, no one will talk about McNabb, Kelly.....or Wilson.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

I think you made my point.

In 15 years, no one will talk about McNabb, Kelly.....or Wilson.

You’re mentioning Kelly 30 years later

 

[Jim]

WNBA - Diana Taurasi
No longer active, but Huskies Sue Bird and Maya Moore will be in Naismith sooner than later.

 

[Deepster]

You’re mentioning Kelly 30 years later

Well, I'm old and a huge football fan. Ask a typical 20 yr old today who Jim Kelly was.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Well, I'm old and a huge football fan. Ask a typical 20 yr old today who Jim Kelly was.

Those would be casual fans

I’m 28 and I know who Jim Kelly is. Never saw him play obviously. I just think Russ is in a higher tier.

 

[Poe]

Andre Drummond (not a joke)

Obviously not near the fence if he retired today, but if he plays another 6-7 years he will have some really good stats (besides points) comparable to top hall of fame centers.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Russ Wilson might not be.

Some of the mentions of Chris Sale are hilarious, he’ll be off the first ballot faster than Giancarlo. Some other good, debatable ones are:

• Rafael Devers, needs some accolades + better stats. But he is young, currently a 21 WAR.
• Frank Gore, might be in more comfortably than others, but who knows.
• Draymond Green, that’s an interesting one.

Frank Gore should be in, but will annoy people who complain about "compilers." Still, longevity and being the #3 rusher all time counts for something, even if he didn't dominate his era.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Andre Drummond (not a joke)

Obviously not near the fence if he retired today, but if he plays another 6-7 years he will have some really good stats (besides points) comparable to top hall of fame centers.

Drummond will be a trivia question, not a Hall of Famer. He's been completely irrelevant in the league other than his All-Universe rebounding (an increasingly irrelevant skill given that teams are playing 4-out, i.e. no teammates competing for boards, and often not even contesting offensive rebounds as a matter of strategy). He's won 2 playoff games ever, and no series.

A good litmus test is "can you tell the story of the NBA (or whatever league) without this guy?" and in Drummond's case the answer is clearly "yes."

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Drummond will be a trivia question, not a Hall of Famer. He's been completely irrelevant in the league other than his All-Universe rebounding (an increasingly irrelevant skill given that teams are playing 4-out, i.e. no teammates competing for boards, and often not even contesting offensive rebounds as a matter of strategy). He's won 2 playoff games ever, and no series.

A good litmus test is "can you tell the story of the NBA (or whatever league) without this guy?" and in Drummond's case the answer is clearly "yes."

Yeah, as one of the biggest Andre fans, unfortunately he has no shot. Unless he somehow reinvents his career a la Brook Lopez and contributes to a winning team. It’s crazy that he is only 30.

 

[lavuuk153]

Drummond will be a trivia question, not a Hall of Famer. He's been completely irrelevant in the league other than his All-Universe rebounding (an increasingly irrelevant skill given that teams are playing 4-out, i.e. no teammates competing for boards, and often not even contesting offensive rebounds as a matter of strategy). He's won 2 playoff games ever, and no series.

A good litmus test is "can you tell the story of the NBA (or whatever league) without this guy?" and in Drummond's case the answer is clearly "yes."

I completely agree with you on Drummond.

I'm not a fan of that litmus test though because there are tons of guys that are HoFer's where I can skip over them in telling the story of the league. Likewise there are guys that are very noteworthy but aren't good enough for the HoF. Frank Gore from your previous post is someone that doesn't need to be mentioned when discussing the NFL. For baseball, Adrian Beltre is a no doubt HoFer but do you really need to include him if you are going through 150 years of the MLB?

 

[lavuuk153]

Wilson’s Passer Rating is miles better and went to 2 Super Bowls himself, winning 1. Way less turnovers.

That doesn't take into account the era. Turnovers weren't something that were as big of a no-no as they are now. There are tons of guys now who have better passer ratings compared to all time greats. Dan Marino finished his career with an 86.4 passer rating. Matt Ryan is at 93.6. Marino had a 3% interception rate and Ryan had a 2.2% rate.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

That doesn't take into account the era. Turnovers weren't something that were as big of a no-no as they are now. There are tons of guys now who have better passer ratings compared to all time greats. Dan Marino finished his career with an 86.4 passer rating. Matt Ryan is at 93.6. Marino had a 3% interception rate and Ryan had a 2.2% rate.

I mean, inherently turnovers have kinda always been a big no-no. Guys are just more skilled now IMO. And technology and efficiency and all that is stressed.

 

[nomar]

I look at as 3000 was the marker for guaranteed to get in. Not getting 3000 hits wasn't a criteria for entry- Ruth, Gehrig, Williams are good arguments for not needing 3k hits to get in.

Yeah, although you didn't need 3,000 hits if you had 500 homers, another magic number. Ruth had 714, Williams had 521 (and missed time due to his service), and Gehrig had 493 and was Gehrig. But in any event, I think we're all in agreement that using counting stats and magic numbers like that are dumb. It should be qualitative. Which it certainly was with Puckett. I was trying to use him as a positive example but my language was clumsy.

 

[Taco]

Trout is a no-brainer. Trout's injuries have tainted a potentially legendary career. But even as is, he'll be around 500hrs and 7 top two finishes in the MVP when he retires.

Freeman won't be a first ballot guy. But I think the numbers, all-around play, and the fact that he is such a good guy will get him in.

deGrom has two cy youngs and as mentioned was Koufax esque for a 3-4 year period of time. Wins for SP have become highly devalued so his "counting" numbers will be based on a sub 1 whip which is historically incredible --just looked it up, literally 2nd best in the history of baseball--.

Greinke should get in eventually

Giancarlo will be interesting. 500hrs was always the benchmark and we'll most likely get there. He could be the first to get to that number and have a tough time getting in.

There's a few likely/no doubt other HOFs still active I think... Verlander, Scherzer, Kershaw

Zach Greinke should get in - not only for his career stats but for also being Zach - he’s a really interesting guy!

 

[Inyatkin]

That doesn't take into account the era. Turnovers weren't something that were as big of a no-no as they are now.

In my day, guys would turn it over three, four times a half and no one minded. Different era. Real men.

 

[Tenspro2002]

That doesn't take into account the era. Turnovers weren't something that were as big of a no-no as they are now. There are tons of guys now who have better passer ratings compared to all time greats. Dan Marino finished his career with an 86.4 passer rating. Matt Ryan is at 93.6. Marino had a 3% interception rate and Ryan had a 2.2% rate.

It's a consequence of the scoring environment.

In a low-scoring era, taking risks to score points is worthwhile, and turnovers not as big a deal because so many more possessions ended in punts.

In a high-scoring era, you want to dink and dunk down the field (the Brady offense) and minimize turnovers.

Think about the difference between MLB baseball and slow-pitch softball. In MLB, you take more risks to score. In softball, avoiding outs is more important.