If the standard is "is this player better than the worst player elected?" then we are adopting the "one mistake must beget a thousand mistakes" logic. This doesn't make rational sense to me. We've got to induct several hundred players pretty quickly now if that is the standard.
Comparing to the average HOFer at that position, or to "is he the best player of his time not in? Is he the best player at his position not in?" makes more rational sense. One mistake should not dictate that dozens more must then be made.
Does Dave Parker compare alright to an average HOF RF'er? Is he the best eligible player not in? Is he the best eligible RF not in? I think this would be a reasonable process of inquiry.
Asking "Who is the best RF not in?" and looking into the data tends to lead to less biased answers.
|