While I'm all for rewarding two-way play, that isn't what this is. Where exactly do you draw the line if you're going to put in a forward pretty much solely for intangibles and defensive contributions? When you can't make an argument for a forward that doesn't include one of those two things that guy shouldn't be in the HOF. Is John Madden going to get serious arguments for the HOF now?
No, because however much I love John Madden (who might be in my top 5 players of alltime) - Guy C was 10x the player he was.
The necessity to quantify everything by points or some statisitic really hurts the basic premise of a Hall of Fame. The point is to put in the greatest players.
Don't you guys have people at your office who maybe don't produce the best numbers on paper but do just about frigging everything for the company? Are we going to say, 'yeah, well - the economy only grew so much during Lincoln's tenure - he wasn't that great'.
I understand as time goes on, that fewer people are going to have seen guys play in their prime - so the luster of a Barry Sanders or Larry Bird or Jack Morris fades over time and folks will just point at numbers and say 'they weren't that great'. But for anyone who saw them play - it's easy to value them far above their contemporaries with much better numbers.
I think of Guy Charbonneau as the anti-Gretzky from his work in the late 80s. That's a pretty big poison for which to be the antidote.