The Baseball HOF post got me thinking. Baseball writers are notoriously gooferific in their judgments as to who's HOF-worthy, when, according to what criteria, etc. For example, Hank Aaron & Babe Ruth, two of the most iconic baseballers of all time weren't unanimous selections due to some idiotic unwritten rule held by a small segment of the HOF electorate.

For me it's simple:

1.) Did the player/coach leave a lasting cultural mark on the sport?

2.) Were the player/coach's character & personal conduct a net credit to the sport?

3.) Did the player/coach achieve at a level of significant distinction relative to his contemporaries?