Theoretical: Hall of Fame Criteria

[Rain Man]

The Pete Rose thread got me to thinking: how important should non-field characteristics be in choosing Hall of Famers?

I'll put up a poll with 27 different types of players. Assume that all of them have exactly the same statistical production on the field, and that it is in the top ten all-time for their position.

Example: if it's a running back, each back gained 12,000 yards at a 4.4 ypc pace. They went to 7 pro bowls and have 1 Super Bowl ring over a 13-year career. They were each an MVP one year. In other words, there wouldn't be a lot of argument about their statistical qualifications for the Hall of Fame, but at the same time, they aren't a freakish #1 or anything.

Now assume that each of those 27 players differs in their non-statistical production in three ways:

Team Chemistry:

A. Team Player - Good guy, makes those around him better, popular team leader.
B. Team Neutral - Never stepped up as a leader, but never caused problems.
C. Team Cancer - Constant complainer, tends to drag down team chemistry and team performance.


Public Chemistry:

A. Popular public figure - Good guy, in demand for speeches, fan favorite
B. Neutral public figure - Not charismatic, fans like him but never got the love expected from his stats
C. Hated public figure - Won't give autographs, calls fans 'suckers', egocentric

Legal Status:

A. Squeaky clean - Never a scrape with the law.
B. Neutral legal status - Has had a couple of minor scrapes in 13 years - one assault, one domestic violence, a couple of lawsuits
C. Criminal - Several assaults on record, several battles with NFL over drug use, implicated but not convicted in at least one major case (murder, extortion, shooting, etc.)

[Cormac]

So the take home message is.....Romo doesn't have a chance.