particularly when you are bringing them up as an example of weakened HOF standards.


>then they pertained more to the teams they played for, if you
>were on a winning team it enhanced your chances a lot but
>overall i don't see nearly as many suspect selections as in
>recent years.

that's a whole other bag of worms. not sure who all these suspect selections in recent years are who are so much worse than guys who have gotten in before even without playing on big time winning teams though (aside from ABA/international guys, which is a different issue)



>>yeah that's what I said - Howard in his prime was better
>than
>>those guys right today. his accolades wouldn't be any
>>different if he was going against them in his prime.
>
>agree to disagree on that, for about three years, sure, for
>the whole stretch (eight selections, five first team)? eh, i
>am not as sure.

so who would get it over him? cuz as of yet none of the guys you mentioned are better than Dwight in his prime.


>like i said, he will get in. i don't doubt it. same with bosh,
>cwebb, reggie miller and other guys i wouldn't vote for
>personally.

you don't think he merits it though, which is not consistent with what has historically merited HOF induction.