sure, that's true. but I think there's a reason why none of the major sports' HoFs do their inductions based on an automatic tally of players' stats. because there's a human side and impact to judging how great a player is, and that's how it will always be. but as Steron says, people get upset because there are no 'set criteria'. well...some things are just meant to be felt out and judged upon by humans, like it or notEightball wrote:Not 100%, but they're the most easily quantifiable comparative. I mean an impact player will get his stats, right? You can't impact a game as a wide receiver if you don't get touchdowns, or catches, or yards, right?
let's take another case, with Jim Brown. as of now, he's #8 on the all-time rushing yardage list (very soon to be #9, with Marshall Faulk less than 50 yards behind). now granted, that's pretty high up in a general sense. however, consider the fact that the *vast* majority of analysts, voters, players, and coaches still consider him to be the best running back in the history of the NFL, bar none
why is that? a non-football person just looking at the stats couldn't come to that conclusion. but the people who actually saw him play, can