NFL HOF, WRs, and related stuff

[QuikSand]

I think we have had some interesting conversations here about the merits of various celebrated wide receivers of recent NFL history - with Tim Brown being the one I recall most vividly.

Anyway, much of that debate is revived as Andre Reed made the HOF in this year's class, and this analysis from 538 is a pretty intriguing look at it, if you're of the stat inclination.

The Football Hall Of Fame Has A Receiver Problem | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-football-hall-of-fame-has-a-receiver-problem/)

Money segment:

Even in a sport where an individual player’s statistics are contaminated by the strengths and weaknesses of his teammates, his coaches and countless other considerations, wide receiver performance is a particularly tough nut to crack. Raw numbers rarely offer enough to help us properly distinguish between pass-catchers, especially across eras, and statisticians haven’t always agreed on how best to correct biases in the data.

Take Reed’s career as an example. It’s a glossy one — at the time he retired, he ranked third all time in catches, fourth in receiving yards and sixth in touchdown receptions. But it’s also one that was entangled with the great ensemble of offensive talent, and one that was a beneficiary of the dawn of the NFL’s passing explosion. Moreover, some advanced stats show that Reed’s on-field influence wasn’t what it appeared to be — the evidence is surprisingly mixed with regard to his actual effect on team passing efficiency.

Discuss.

[flere-imsaho]

I suspect my contribution will make QS roll his eyes (as I don't believe it's the discussion you're looking for, QS), but I think we overthink Halls of Fame when it comes to statistics. Reed's candidacy, to me, comes down to this:

Former Buffalo Bills wide receiver Andre Reed was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday, joining his longtime teammates Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith in Canton. As a key contributor to the Bills’ four Super Bowl berths in the 1990s,1 Reed is a qualified candidate for the game’s greatest individual honor.

I remain hung up on it being the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Impressive Statistics. That's not to say an otherwise less-heralded player who nevertheless has some impressive, outlier, unique or leading statistics in his career shouldn't be considered and inducted. I just think when we launch a conversation like this, we're looking at it the wrong way around.

[QuikSand]

So, no offensive guards, ever. Right? Just show ponies.

[flere-imsaho]

So, no offensive guards, ever. Right? Just show ponies.

You could certainly still make a case for them either through fame (members of famous offensive lines) or statistics, is what I'm saying.

All I'm saying is that I find fault with the exercise of taking someone who (arguably) makes the "fame grade", and then reducing him based on statistics. I don't have a problem with making a case based on statistics alone (and I believe some exist for Guards, such as sacks allowed, games, played, etc...).

For reference, there's only 13 modern-era guards in the Hall, and five of them are also listed as Tackles.

[Warhammer]

The problem we have with any HoF how we've become a slave to stats.

I wonder if we shouldn't start inducting units rather than individuals for the football HoF. Who was better, Torry Holt or Isaac Bruce? Should both be in? The GSoT only won one Super Bowl, how many guys from that team should be in? Their WOWY stat is average, but that offense was the first to put up 500 pts in 3 consecutive years.

[Subby]

Slave to stats or slaves to objectivity? I'm sick of the eye test, common sense, gut feeling, and anecdotal evidence. I need objective, measurable data that helps me compare performances across teams, seasons, and eras. Don Mattingly was super famous but he certainly won't ever sniff a hall of fame. Fame is completely subjective, as is the prism through which we all see the world. It helps to clarify your understanding when you have data that can use to support your claim.

[flere-imsaho]

If we conceive of a Hall of Fame as both a) honoring those who excelled at the sport and b) preserving the history of a game, I can certainly see a logic where we can exclude those whose fame was ancillary to the game (Mattingly?), and include those who may not have had the fame, but made some other significant contribution, likely supported by statistics.

[gstelmack]

The Bill James book on the baseball Hall of Fame should be required reading before we start a conversation like this, since he asks many similar questions and helps frame the debate. In particular, I like his Keltner list, which might be fun to adapt to football:


Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
Was he the best player on his team?
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

[Logan]

The Bill James book on the baseball Hall of Fame should be required reading before we start a conversation like this, since he asks many similar questions and helps frame the debate. In particular, I like his Keltner list, which might be fun to adapt to football:



Just curious, and save me a googling here, did he come up with some sort of hurdle or range of "yes" answers where a player would be HOF worthy?

[Chief Rum]

The Bill James book on the baseball Hall of Fame should be required reading before we start a conversation like this, since he asks many similar questions and helps frame the debate. In particular, I like his Keltner list, which might be fun to adapt to football:


Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
Was he the best player on his team?
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

I always found his list here too restrictive.

[oykib]

I always found his list here too restrictive.

I think it helps frame the argument. Obviously, Derek Jeter is a first-ballot HoFer. But if ARod had stayed at short, the answer to a lot of these questions would be no. But that can be brought up as part of the answer.

The list is probably more useful for eliminating the eye-test candidates than it is for validating the data-based candidates.

[Solecismic]

It's difficult to separate the performances of 11 players in vastly different roles. Sample sizes in football are also ridiculously low, once you group plays for relevance.

By contrast, almost every play in baseball is relevant, and most plays have high degrees of individual performance.

To compare players, we need statistics of some sort. The alternative is reliance on scouting, which is a crapshoot. There's a huge difference between Pro Bowl assessments from year-to-year, especially for linemen. And role is a big factor as well - remember when Nnamdi Asomugha was all-everything. And then he wasn't.

I'm glad Reed is in, because his numbers stand out. But how much of that was the style of offense and the skill of his quarterback? Or how much of Jim Kelly and his remarkable run was Reed's skill? Hard to tell.

Ultimately, a Hall of Fame, especially in a sport like football, is for entertainment purposes only.

[MIJB#19]

If it's all about fame, Tim Tebow should be a lock.

But more seriously, in team sports, the hall of fame should be about famous teams, not it's individuals. 1972 Dolphins, 1985 Bears, 2007 Patriots, perhaps the four-in-a-row Bills...