06-03-2019, 12:19 AMSlappydoodle Wrote: Still in the middle of listening, but one quick comment. In my view the systemic issue with the HOF is the reliance on award noms and wins. Awards and to a lesser degree points (which are effectively the same thing in this league)  are the only things i ever hear referenced by HOF committee members.

Also, Manius played nineteen seasons. The Bojo box has all but one season of his career listed under the wrong spelling and one season under the proper one. @.bojo

Pretty much agree with you across the board on the tampering discussion. We do cover it extensively on our latest as well.

You are losing touch with culture and society. Its called getting old, lol. Join the club

I would be curious to see how you would go about analyzing players from a HOF perspective. I think that no matter what there is no sure-fire way to truly compare and contrast players without some sort of variable that gets lost in the process. Players can earn points more than others based on circumstances beyond their control. Hits demonstrate physicality but how do we determine how much that physicality leads to success? Challenge Cups are a good measure of the proximity a player is to great success, but it being a team award there is a lot of context to try and figure out to what degree a player contributed (and even then we get sent back to the points vs. hits vs. minutes played etc. discussion that we see for career numbers). Who wins certain awards is determined based on the committee at the time. Would we consider All-Star nominations in the same kind of mindset as awards, rendering both of them redundant in a sense? Do we factor in the player's legacy for their team? If so, how do we do that?

This isn't me trying to out-debate you or anything, I am honestly curious for your perspective and if it could be implemented in the HOF in some capacity.