Where do you rank the Hall of Fames of the 4 major sports?

[Big Phil]

Hockey, Baseball, Football and Basketball.

Just mention the ones you've been to. For me it would look like this:

Baseball
Football
Hockey
Basketball

I don't think you can beat Cooperstown. There is something in the air around that place. It is clearly a town that is built around the Hall. Down the street you have Doubleday Field. I watched a bantam game there once, just for the heck of it. Lots of Americana surrounding it. I don't think any Hall beats the nostalgia quite like this one.

Football again is another Hall in a good area. Ohio is very much the capital of the football world, so it suits it, plus the NHL was founded there. I'll say one thing, while I am a big football historian I think it is hard to compete with baseball when it comes down to that. People still love to hear about Babe Ruth 100 years later. How many people want to talk about Sammy Baugh? Anyway, more interactive than the Baseball Hall.

With the HHOF you've got it in Toronto and this is the only one of the Halls where it is not in the location where the sport was founded. It probably was just chosen because it is a good location and a populous location. Kind of reminds me of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Yeah there are some reasons it was picked, but you always wonder why it isn't in Detroit, or Nashville or Memphis or somewhere like that. I guess you can say downtown Toronto isn't the most nostalgic hockey setting. I always wonder about where the Stanley Cup is set up. It almost looks like you could just walk out the door and be right in an intersection of downtown Toronto. Which you could. That being said, the fact that the Cup is there is quite epic. I've always loved that. There is a lot of interactive things to do there, that big theatre always has a fun video to watch and once you are inside it definitely has a "hockey feel" to it. Lots of things to read as well, neat stuff to look up. You could easily spend a day there if you want to go through things thoroughly. Love the Habs dressing room replica.

I guess something has to go 4th. The James Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Mass. I liked it, don't get me wrong. I went when they were in the middle of the additions on the 3rd level, so it probably is a bit bigger now. I thought it was the fastest Hall to go through. Lots of interactive stuff. You can dunk on a 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10ft. net. You can shoot into peach baskets. I liked the footprints of the Hall of Famers. I had the same shoe size as Michael Jordan, slightly smaller than Lebron (not in the Hall yet but he was still mentioned). Shaq's shoe forget about it! I appreciated that Naismith was still profiled, Canadian born and all. Also like how it was in Springfield where Naismith introduced it.

Click to read more...

 

[Thenameless]

I've only been to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

I like the way Cooperstown does things. Very high standards - really almost too high if you think about who hasn't made it.

 

[Big Phil]

I've only been to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

I like the way Cooperstown does things. Very high standards - really almost too high if you think about who hasn't made it.

Yes for sure, probably the toughest one to get in as far as standards. Barry Bonds, Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Roger Clemens, A-Rod, McGwire, etc. are all not in and there is either a steroid/gambling issue keeping them out. I don't agree, because they were all great ball players and once Bud Selig got in there - who oversaw the steroid era - then there was no reason to keep Bonds and co. out. It is really shame that way that the single season and career HR leader is not in, nor is the all-time hit leader.

As for just normal standards, yeah it is hard. Curt Schilling is likely to get the 75% I would think in 2022, which is his 10th year of eligibility. I mean, Schilling is a HOF pitcher no doubt, but he isn't in yet. Andy Pettite sure doesn't have the support either. Manny Ramirez, I just can't see how he isn't a lock other than perhaps see the above reasons. Definitely very strict. For example, the hockey playing version of Joe Carter is probably in, as is the hockey version of pitcher David Cone, I think.

 

[buffalowing88]

Yes for sure, probably the toughest one to get in as far as standards. Barry Bonds, Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Roger Clemens, A-Rod, McGwire, etc. are all not in and there is either a steroid/gambling issue keeping them out. I don't agree, because they were all great ball players and once Bud Selig got in there - who oversaw the steroid era - then there was no reason to keep Bonds and co. out. It is really shame that way that the single season and career HR leader is not in, nor is the all-time hit leader.

As for just normal standards, yeah it is hard. Curt Schilling is likely to get the 75% I would think in 2022, which is his 10th year of eligibility. I mean, Schilling is a HOF pitcher no doubt, but he isn't in yet. Andy Pettite sure doesn't have the support either. Manny Ramirez, I just can't see how he isn't a lock other than perhaps see the above reasons. Definitely very strict. For example, the hockey playing version of Joe Carter is probably in, as is the hockey version of pitcher David Cone, I think.

The Baseball HOF is just so prickly about everything. Schilling comes off as an ass, I don't disagree, but he has no connection to steroids or anything that would tarnish his legacy and he's been waitlisted. He's too big of a big game player to not be in by now. Even the steroid guys all have cases where they were all-time greats before they got involved with PEDs. And then there's the whole Pete Rose thing, which boggles my mind to this day. Because of that, I can't, in good faith, rank their HOF first since it is such an arbitrary institution.

As you said earlier, there is a lot to be said for the Pro Football HOF. Canton has really turned itself around as a city in the past decade as well which hasn't hurt. Went there last in 2017 and it was a great time and could have spent the entire day at the actual site.

I think the Hockey HOF deserves credit for being immersive and being right in the heart of the hotbed of hockey. I know that can be seen as a takeaway but there's just something exciting to me about going there and then walking out and you're right there in Downtown Toronto, especially if the Leafs are playing that day. It's pretty immersive, too. I went with a friend from NC and he did some virtual shootout contest they held on a whim and ended up getting picked to skate on the ice and do a shootout during the Hall of Fame Game in 07. Those are the types of things that endear people to the place. (Him winning $5,000 in the shootout made me incredibly jealous of him, but that's another story altogether.)

The absolute worst is the Basketball HOF. I agree that it's interesting that they would put it in Springfield since that's where the game was founded, but the entire establishment feels incredibly dated. Basketball is arguably my favorite sport to follow and I would have loved to have found a place that was more invested in the experience but I didn't think there was much to it. I also take off major points because literally everyone and anyone who was "good" is getting inducted into that HOF these days. I don't want to spend my time reading about Mitch Richmond or, inevitably, Carmelo Anthony. It's just a Hall of Very Good these days.

 

[Big Phil]

The Baseball HOF is just so prickly about everything. Schilling comes off as an ass, I don't disagree, but he has no connection to steroids or anything that would tarnish his legacy and he's been waitlisted. He's too big of a big game player to not be in by now. Even the steroid guys all have cases where they were all-time greats before they got involved with PEDs. And then there's the whole Pete Rose thing, which boggles my mind to this day. Because of that, I can't, in good faith, rank their HOF first since it is such an arbitrary institution.

As you said earlier, there is a lot to be said for the Pro Football HOF. Canton has really turned itself around as a city in the past decade as well which hasn't hurt. Went there last in 2017 and it was a great time and could have spent the entire day at the actual site.

I think the Hockey HOF deserves credit for being immersive and being right in the heart of the hotbed of hockey. I know that can be seen as a takeaway but there's just something exciting to me about going there and then walking out and you're right there in Downtown Toronto, especially if the Leafs are playing that day. It's pretty immersive, too. I went with a friend from NC and he did some virtual shootout contest they held on a whim and ended up getting picked to skate on the ice and do a shootout during the Hall of Fame Game in 07. Those are the types of things that endear people to the place. (Him winning $5,000 in the shootout made me incredibly jealous of him, but that's another story altogether.)

The absolute worst is the Basketball HOF. I agree that it's interesting that they would put it in Springfield since that's where the game was founded, but the entire establishment feels incredibly dated. Basketball is arguably my favorite sport to follow and I would have loved to have found a place that was more invested in the experience but I didn't think there was much to it. I also take off major points because literally everyone and anyone who was "good" is getting inducted into that HOF these days. I don't want to spend my time reading about Mitch Richmond or, inevitably, Carmelo Anthony. It's just a Hall of Very Good these days.

Fair points. Yeah I guess the opinions of how the Hall's are inducting people can factor in to how much you enjoy it as well. I guess with hockey outside of goalies (and save a couple of defensemen) the standards are pretty low considering we all can name forwards who shouldn't be in there. Baseball is on the flip side of things where it might be too hard to get in. I guess that's better than the hockey way, but yeah it has really hurt when it comes to the ones left out. I mean, no one got inducted for 2021? Really, no one? It might be the biggest of the "old boys club". Except you figure with so many votes coming in there would be more common sense rather than just 18 guys in hockey figuring it out.

I am not sure what else Schilling needed to do. I agree about the big game situation too. I guess the media could like him more, but as far as I am concerned he is clearly more deserving to get in than, say, Barrasso in hockey, whom they don't like either. Even Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young, so they can't hold that against him.

It is getting worse and worse with the Bonds/Clemens and co. situation. I mean, I wasn't a huge Bonds fan, but at what point does it literally not matter to him anymore if he gets in and will it even be special when he does with such a backhanded compliment? This is so bad how baseball has handled the whole thing. The HOF is not tied to MLB though, even though they do tend to run parallel with how MLB feels.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

My first time to the Hockey Hall was the best for me. Went with my 13 year old son first thing on a Saturday morning. We were the first 2 into the trophy room under the bank building dome. Got to the top of the stairs and we were in awe. It was heaven. Last time I went (couple years ago) it was much different, missing some of the best exhibits from the first time I went.

Cooperstown is really special. Has an old time vibe to it. Especially enjoyed the Negro leagues section.

Went to the basketball Hall long ago, before the new building (2002).

 

[buffalowing88]

Agreed on all accounts. Especially the Bonds thing. He's a HOFer even if he retires at the age of 30, at which point he definitely was not using steroids. I assume he started during the lockout-shortened season as that's when he started noticeably getting bigger, and by that point he already had three MVPs to his name and a 40/40 season. I wasn't a big fan either but he's arguably the most talented baseball player of the past 50 years. How the HOF justifies not including him is beyond me at this point. If a fan is literally going to be offended by him being included than I don't consider them a real fan at all.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Agreed on all accounts. Especially the Bonds thing. He's a HOFer even if he retires at the age of 30, at which point he definitely was not using steroids. I assume he started during the lockout-shortened season as that's when he started noticeably getting bigger, and by that point he already had three MVPs to his name and a 40/40 season. I wasn't a big fan either but he's arguably the most talented baseball player of the past 50 years. How the HOF justifies not including him is beyond me at this point. If a fan is literally going to be offended by him being included than I don't consider them a real fan at all.

Agree that Bonds was a Hall of Famer before the steroid use.

But by putting up Gretzky-like numbers in his late 30's, his steroid use really made a mockery of the game.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Been to all 4

Baseball



Football
Basketball


Hockey

The hockey hall of fame was a let down. It's small, there's very few exhibits and half the interactive things were broken. It deserves so much better.

Cooperstown is an experience and awe inspiring.

 

[buffalowing88]

Agree that Bonds was a Hall of Famer before the steroid use.

But by putting up Gretzky-like numbers in his late 30's, his steroid use really made a mockery of the game.

They're pretty absurd looking numbers, no argument here. I just don't feel like you can tell the story of baseball's history without including him. Clemens as well. Although Clemens was a gun-for-hire at the end and I never liked that...but that's neither here nor there.

 

[DeysArena]

Baseball set the model for most other halls of fame, not just in North America but around the world. They're almost all based on Cooperstown.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

They're pretty absurd looking numbers, no argument here. I just don't feel like you can tell the story of baseball's history without including him. Clemens as well. Although Clemens was a gun-for-hire at the end and I never liked that...but that's neither here nor there.

You can still tell the Bonds story without inducting him. Same for Clemens.

There are a number of Pete Rose related items in the Hall. That surprised me when I was there.

 

[buffalowing88]

You can still tell the Bonds story without inducting him. Same for Clemens.

There are a number of Pete Rose related items in the Hall. That surprised me when I was there.

I had no idea about them having Rose things. I haven't been there since I was a teenager so maybe I missed it or they added it later but that's cool. Rose has some memorable moments (WS wins, the hit record, etc.) that can be included as singular aspects of his career. Bonds doesn't have that besides his HR record. His career is just about totality and all-around superb play. I personally think he needs to be inducted to fully appreciate him but I understand where you're coming from.

 

[scott clam]

The absolute worst is the Basketball HOF. I agree that it's interesting that they would put it in Springfield since that's where the game was founded, but the entire establishment feels incredibly dated. Basketball is arguably my favorite sport to follow and I would have loved to have found a place that was more invested in the experience but I didn't think there was much to it. I also take off major points because literally everyone and anyone who was "good" is getting inducted into that HOF these days. I don't want to spend my time reading about Mitch Richmond or, inevitably, Carmelo Anthony. It's just a Hall of Very Good these days.

Aside from Richmond who are some of the other recent inductees you don't think belong?

 

[buffalowing88]

Aside from Richmond who are some of the other recent inductees you don't think belong?

Bill Bradley, Dave Bing, Dikembe Mutombo, Vlade Divac, Jack Sikma...that's just the usual suspects. It's only going to get worse in coming years. I will not be surprised if Gilbert Arenas gets in soon. I just don't like that it's basically become such a low bar for what it takes to get in. A lot of people argue with Dennis Rodman being in, but at least he was a major contributor to two dynasties...but Jack Sikma? In what world?

 

[DJ Man]

Agree that Bonds was a Hall of Famer before the steroid use.

But by putting up Gretzky-like numbers in his late 30's, his steroid use really made a mockery of the game.

Exactly.
The casual fan may not care, but for those of us who celebrate the history of a sport and attempt to valuate its players' achievements, it's quite the insult. Those record books belong to us. You can't alter them by cheating and get away with it, leaving a mess than cannot be cleaned up. Just go any smash something less important, like ancient statuary.

 

[Davenport]

I washed my hands of the Hockey Hall of Fame way back when the induction of Doug Harvey was delayed a year. Don't know what point the folks in charge were trying to make, but egg landed on their faces not on Harvey's.

 

[scott clam]

Bill Bradley, Dave Bing, Dikembe Mutombo, Vlade Divac, Jack Sikma...that's just the usual suspects. It's only going to get worse in coming years. I will not be surprised if Gilbert Arenas gets in soon. I just don't like that it's basically become such a low bar for what it takes to get in. A lot of people argue with Dennis Rodman being in, but at least he was a major contributor to two dynasties...but Jack Sikma? In what world?

Thing is there are many people who consider Mutombo the greatest low post defender of all time. I'm not sure about those other guys, but 4x DPOY and 2nd all time in blocks is pretty deserving IMO.

 

[Thenameless]

Thing is there are many people who consider Mutombo the greatest low post defender of all time. I'm not sure about those other guys, but 4x DPOY and 2nd all time in blocks is pretty deserving IMO.

I think he's only that high because blocks weren't counted during the Bill Russell/Wilt Chamberlain era. DPoY is also a relatively modern thing.

 

[buffalowing88]

Thing is there are many people who consider Mutombo the greatest low post defender of all time. I'm not sure about those other guys, but 4x DPOY and 2nd all time in blocks is pretty deserving IMO.

Those are impressive numbers. The poster above me already contextualized them (@Thenameless , thank you). They represent an absolute lack of contribution in the other facets of the game to me, though. It's gross that Ben Wallace is getting in this year and it's gross that Mutombo is already in. The Hall of Fame should be for dominant players, not specialists.

 

[The Panther]

I first went to the Hockey Hall of Fame during a brief period when I resided in central Toronto. I just went by myself and checked it out -- I thought it was okay. (This is late-90s.) A month later, I talked to one of my best friends about it, and he asked, "What part on the second floor did you like?" I was, like, "Second floor...?" Missed it completely.

Was back there in 2016, I think. Enjoyed it.

 

[scott clam]

I think he's only that high because blocks weren't counted during the Bill Russell/Wilt Chamberlain era. DPoY is also a relatively modern thing.

If they recorded blocks when Wilt played he would be the all time leader by far, without a doubt.

 

[Bondurant]

Cooperstown is an essential visit. Between 2007-08 I made multiple trips to Toronto. Passed on HHOF each time as I was not with hockey fans and they had no interest. Made it a point to go "next time" and "next time" never happened. Another visit to Toronto after many years is on my list of urgent items once Canada decides to open again.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If they recorded blocks when Wilt played he would be the all time leader by far, without a doubt.

If they recorded the blocks then, Wilt would have had twice as many as he did.

 

[Big Phil]

I washed my hands of the Hockey Hall of Fame way back when the induction of Doug Harvey was delayed a year. Don't know what point the folks in charge were trying to make, but egg landed on their faces not on Harvey's.

I had to look that up, and yeah, he got in back in 1973 even when he was eligible in 1972. I think there is some reasons behind it though. 1972 you had 5 guys inducted. It was in 1967 that they did the whole thing where it was only 4 players per year. The years prior they were doing some backlog and had more inductees per year.

In 1972, Beliveau, Howe, Geoffrion, Hap Holmes and then Hooley Smith. The last two were very old players who had long been dead. I am not sure why they got in other than backlog. But Howe and Beliveau both got that exception to the rule that Richard, Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux got by waving the three year waiting period. That's why they got in. Geoffrion was eligible in 1971 but didn't get in then. Strange. But either way, my guess is that there had to be some reason for Harvey getting in 4 years after and not three. Even waving the rule for him would have made sense. So my guess is that maybe it was something similar to Bossy. He didn't play after 1987 so you assume a player of his caliber is in by 1990 for sure, right? Nope. 1991. It isn't like he wasn't better than everyone else who got inducted in 1990, so why the wait? If I recall Bossy didn't officially announce his retirement until 1988 and that is what the HHOF at the time went by. It changed after that, as we know Pronger never really officially retired but still got in three years after his last game. So maybe Harvey didn't announce his retirement until 1969? I don't know.

One really bizarre one that makes no sense is how did Dale Hawerchuk wait a year extra? He was eligible in 2000, but Denis Savard and Joe Mullen got in despite there being more room for him. Then he gets inducted in 2001. I mean, what? Exactly what were the discussions surrounding this? Hawerchuk wasn't good enough in 2000 but okay by 2001? I never got that.

Agreed on all accounts. Especially the Bonds thing. He's a HOFer even if he retires at the age of 30, at which point he definitely was not using steroids. I assume he started during the lockout-shortened season as that's when he started noticeably getting bigger, and by that point he already had three MVPs to his name and a 40/40 season. I wasn't a big fan either but he's arguably the most talented baseball player of the past 50 years. How the HOF justifies not including him is beyond me at this point. If a fan is literally going to be offended by him being included than I don't consider them a real fan at all.

It is just getting ugly now. I mean, how anti-climatic is that going to be when Bonds gets in? Is he even going to want to attend the ceremony? Can you blame him if he doesn't? I can't. Look, I never cared for him either, and that includes factoring in the media bias that was almost certainly against him (call it the Tom Barrasso rule if you want as I don't always agree with how the media sometimes purposely wants to shape the perception of an athlete, right or wrong). But there shouldn't be a list of top 10 ball players that doesn't have his name on it. Maybe top 5, some say top 3, heck, a minority might say #1. I don't, but I definitely think he is top 10 and like it or not - and I don't - but he has two of the most prestigious records in baseball. But you can't just have this thing linger, it is bad for baseball when this happens. If Bonds isn't in, then neither should Bud Selig who oversaw this whole era.

It is a black mark that baseball hasn't fixed this yet. Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe (even those that believe he was involved) ought to be in as well in my mind. They were excellent ball players. In the 1919 World Series that the White Sox fixed it was Shoeless Joe who batted .375. Baseball has done a good job of admitting they were wrong by not integrating the game soon before 1947, why not admit they let things get out of hand in the steroid era and that the players who were playing then should still get in? It would be a good way of healing.

As for when the roids started. I am not sure exactly, but I know that according to Jose Canseco he was with Bonds around 1999 or 2000 and he was changing and Bonds saw how ripped he was in the upper body and asked him what he was doing. Canseco told him. Anyway, that's what he says in his book. I guess it makes sense since his numbers went up at that time.

Agree that Bonds was a Hall of Famer before the steroid use.

But by putting up Gretzky-like numbers in his late 30's, his steroid use really made a mockery of the game.

He did, yes, that bothers me because his numbers - to his standards - were starting to go down and then all of the sudden they hit Ruthian levels that he had never hit before. To this day, if there is any consolation, Roger Maris still holds the American League record for home runs in a season with 61. But when you grow up and hear about that number and Aaron's 755 you figure something special ought to happen for you to see this broken and it is exciting see the players try year after year. But when McGwire, Sosa and Bonds all crushed it, then it wasn't as fun to see (I'll admit 1998 was a fun year to watch before things came out).

I still think he should get in the Hall and that baseball ought to take full ownership for turning a blind eye to the things that put a black mark on the lovely game.