Does the Hall of Fame Concept Have Limited Functionality and Credibility?
October 10, 2008, by Homme De Sept-Iles
Does the Hall of Fame Concept Have Limited Functionality and Credibility?
Some time back, an argument was put forward to me regarding a given pro player’s induction into the NFL Hall of Fame. I generally don’t discuss the Hall of Fame or All-Star Selections as I feel they are far too subjective to be used as argumentative foundations. However, I thought I would elaborate on this position and invite discussion on such.
Before wading into any discussion of the Hall of Fame and its merits and functionality as supporting evidence for any sports argument, the following issues should be considered:
What is the HOF besides a who’s-who of the best-known players? How does a Hall of Fame decide its members? What is the induction process? Is it similar to any other popularity contest of this magnitude? And should it be dismissed when discussing team sports? Is the Championship Mentality an underlying factor in the process? Are there mechanisms that immunize the process from racism, personality-bias or other such discrimination? Can greatness be recognized even if it is over a short period? Are some positions under-recognized? Are some positions evaluated using the wrong statistics?
What is the HOF besides a who’s-who of the best-known players?
It’s not much else. If you toil in obsurity yet are kissed by greatness, who’s going to know it but your coaches and the fans in your area? Unenshrined players that fit this bill include Neil Lomax and Roy Green (QB, WR, Cardinals] and Wes Chandler [WR Chargers]. Small-market teams or teams with losing records are less likely to produce a Hall of Famer. Unfair. The debate finds its fulcrum in this question: “Is the HOF for great individual talents or is it for the greatest team players in history?” The answer to that question varies too much from moment to moment. Person A will take position one for a given player and argue against another player using position two. Asinine.
It’s easier to make these selections by narrowing down using championships won as an initial criteria and W/L record as the second. To go beyond that is too much effort for most of the voters. This means that deserving players who don’t fit the first two criteria are less likely to be selected.
The HOF selection process, if you’re going to bother with the process, is a job for football historians and/or coaches who have seen multiple eras. Media members (read: failed athletes) and former players are either too weak on football knowledge [it is shocking how many former and current players don't know much beyond their own assignments], too biased or too era-centric and not knowledgeable beyond the cities or teams they have been associated with [either through their beats or through opponent schedules and teammate rosters].
Players that are spotlighted in NFL Films because of colourful personalities have an unfair advantage (or perhaps disadvantage) as do players who end up in the broadcast booth. Their exploits don’t fade away in the same way as for other players. We see and hear about their achievements on a repeated basis.
How does a Hall of Fame decide its members? What is the induction process?
Most Halls make the induction decision annually and once it is made, it is final [in some cases people have been considered for removal from their respective Hall]. There are usually a handful of finalists, say twenty, and those twenty are determined using fairly arbitrary means. What I mean is, there is no set formula or quota or so forth. In some cases, a player may be getting his “last crack” at entering a Hall [eligibility for the HOF honour only lasts so long] and therefore there is extra weighting for that player; unfair for the other finalists and a reflection of the subjective nature of the process.
Is it similar to any other popularity contest of this magnitude?
Oh, yes.
The Hall of Fame popularity contest is very similar to the Oscars, another event worth ignoring. It is political and whimsical and decided by people who may not have “seen all the films”. How can someone who has not seen all the films released in a given year make a judgement on who displayed the best acting? How can someone who has not seen all the films make a decision on the best football player at a given position? Statistical evaluations can only take a person so far in evaluating a player. For example, Tim Brown may have caught ten passes in a game for 153 yards, and James Jett may have caught five for 100 yards. On that alone, perhaps we could say that Brown was the better player. But if Brown dropped three and Jett caught two for TDs with no drops, then where are we?
That aside, what gives anyone the credibility to make evaluative judgements on football history? Does a member of the media, who doesn’t even understand how the game works have what it takes to evaluate what is happening on the field? How can anyone evaluate a play and its results without knowing what was written in the playbook, what the defensive playcall was, what the blocking assignments were and what the injury status of each player on the field was? Do the voters get that information? No. They do not. If they did, are most of them qualified to grade a play? No, most of them are not.
And should it (the HOF and related nominations and admissions) be dismissed when discussing team sports?
Yes, it should.
In my view, when it comes to team sports, there is little value in assigning individual recognition. If recognition must be a part of the process, I believe in unit recognition. I’ve coached high school football since 1991 and I have implemented unit awards for end-of-season recognition, for in-practice end-of-day recognition and for post-game recognition.
Is the Championship Mentality an underlying factor in the process?
Yes, it is.
What is the Championship Mentality? It’s another easy way to make player or team evaluations that disregard due diligence in gathering all details. Only one team can win a championship in a given season. Does this mean that the five or six elite teams are automatically garbage? To many viewers the underlying answer is “yes.” Those teams and consequently any of their great players are dismissed. A famous coach recently said this in the minutes immediately following a pro championship win, “I’m the same coach I was five minutes ago.” That reminds me of folks who said that John Madden wasn’t “a winner” for many years and the same for Bill Cowher. They were champions in action and winners before they won their respective Super Bowls and had either not won a Super Bowl, I would still have classed them as champion-calibre coaches. The same applies for many players.
Teams that don’t win championships have been graced with great players, too. But for every Barry Sanders (who was so great that he had to be recognized) in the HOF, there are five great players on mediocre teams or non-championship-winning teams who did not and will not enter the HOF. Thurman Thomas and Jim Kelly come to mind.
Are there mechanisms that immunize the process from racism, personality-bias or other such discrimination?
No. There are good intentions from some, but that doesn’t suffice.
BC Lion quarterback Roy Dewalt won’t get into the Canadian Football Hall of Fame because his exploits were under-reported or dismissed by a media tainted by race prejudice. Defensive great Dennis Rodman won’t get into the NBA equivalent of the HOF because of his so-called “antics” and because he was “too different”; he fails to qualify as one of the 50 Best NBA players despite being one of the top five rebounders in NBA history, arguably the best as he is the lightest (in weight) and shortest of the five. And, so forth.
Can greatness be recognized even if it is over a short period?
It should be but it isn’t. As a recent example, Bo Jackson is a player that should be enshrined but won’t be because his career was cut short by injury. He averaged 5.4 yards per carry. That should mean something to football-knowledgeable people. Especially since he never had a high-calibre quarterback and teams could gang up on him.
What about one-game or one-season magic? Does that count?
It meant something to the given teams that benefitted from such performances but means nothing to HOF voters and other people who dismiss those performances. It’s just another easy way to whittle down the work in making a selection. Either you’re serious about this process or you aren’t. Most “greatest ever” statements are made by dilettantes.
Are some positions under-recognized?
Yes. There are no punters or tight ends in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Anyone who dismisses these positions as irrelevant to the outcome of a game (and I’ve heard some former players and current media members say this) should not be involved in football.
Raymond Chester, Mark Bavaro, Ray Guy and Reggie Roby come to mind.
Are some positions evaluated using the wrong statistics?
Definitely. And this also undermines the credibility of the HOF selection process. In hockey, defencemen are too often valued based on goals scored (plays defenced, errors and breakout passes are not public domain statistics). In football, defensive backs are too often valued by interceptions made (good coverage does not have a publically available set of statistics). There are many more examples.
Conclusion
I have no interest in all-star nominations, HOF induction ceremonies or other fatuous processes associated with sports. Yes, these events and subsequent nominations and selectios do spark debate but why must we consider debate a good thing when so many with whom we debate are knowledge-handicapped?
All of these questions asked, based on my knowledge of quarterbacks in NFL history and with respect for those who do care about these sorts of opinions and for what it is worth (nothing) Kurt Warner should enter the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Related posts:
Subscribe to the Podcast
0 comments
Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment