Few conversations in sports can spark as much disagreement as players who deserve an induction into the Hall of Fame.

The reason is simple: Were they merely very good?

Across the major North American professional leagues, the conversations are similar. Since an objective criteria does not exist—and likely never will—these legendary decisions are left to a voting body and/or committee full of personal biases and differing opinions.

At any point in time, there are contentious debates. The following eight (retired) players—plus a mention of Steroid Era players from Major League Baseball—have the most interesting resumes to consider.

MLB's Steroid Era Players

The Case For

B/R's Zachary Rymer summed it up nicely: "There's no doubting the sincerity of those who believe Cooperstown is no place for juicers. Rather, the issue with that notion is one of naivete."

Look, the Steroid Era is a blemish on MLB's history. But even the official ban didn't include a testing policy, so there's literally no way of knowing for certain who used (or did not use) performance-enhancing drugs. There are assuredly some Hall of Famers who used steroids but haven't been connected like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez or Sammy Sosa have.

"There's the Bud Selig conundrum," Rymer also said. "If the commissioner can be in the Hall of Fame despite his failings during the Steroid Era, the same standard should be applied to players who defined the era."

The Case Against

Let's steal a classic parental line: Just because everyone was doing it doesn't make it right.

Now, everyone was not using steroids. (I would like to avoid a lawsuit.) Breaking the rules should have consequences, and cheating—particularly in any significant form—should not be tolerated.

The challenge of this notion, as alluded to earlier, is MLB's lack of a longtime testing policy has often reduced these conversations to rumors and speculation. Still, in some cases, like McGwire, Rodriguez or Ramirez, the players either admitted use or were suspended during their careers. It's defensible to not vote for them.

Eli Manning

Status: Eligible in 2025

The Case For

When he retired in 2019, Eli Manning ranked seventh all-time in both career passing yards and touchdowns. He is, objectively, one of the most prolific quarterbacks in NFL history.

Plus, he guided the New York Giants to a pair of Super Bowl victories—including one to prevent the New England Patriots from completing a perfect season. In a sports world that values championships, it's hard to ignore the combination of Manning's stats and trophies.

The Case Against

Manning isn't close to the greatest of his era. He never received an MVP vote or landed All-Pro recognition, and New York wasn't a playoff regular after his first five seasons. He posted a 117-117 record in 16 years.

Historically, championships won play a major role. But if we're honest about Eli, he was more good than great.

Philip Rivers

Status: Eligible in 2026

The Case For

Philip Rivers, similarly, is heavily featured on the NFL's all-time passing list. He ranked fifth in both yards and touchdowns upon retiring in 2020 after a 17-year career spent largely with the San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers and one season on the Indianapolis Colts.

The best players, no matter their awards or trophies, deserve a place in the Hall of Fame. Rivers, who was known for incredible pre-snap ability, changed how defenses had to disguise blitzes and coverages.

Beyond his eight Pro Bowl nods, Rivers finished fourth in AP Offensive Player of the Year voting three times.

The Case Against

Rivers had a few seasons in MVP consideration, sure, but the Chargers rarely did anything of significance in the playoffs. They reached the AFC Championship Game in Rivers' first year as a starter and never returned to that round, let alone made a Super Bowl.

If winning matters, Rivers falls short. His 134-106 career mark is better than Eli Manning, for example, but detractors will say Rivers' stats are a product of longevity in a pass-driven era, not necessarily excellence.

Torry Holt

Status: Eligible since 2014, has been at least a semifinalist each of those years

The Case For

Have you looked at Torry Holt's numbers? During his 11-year career, he racked up 1,188-plus yards in eight consecutive seasons and surpassed 700 yards in each of the others. Holt was a two-time All-Pro selection and helped the St. Louis Rams win a Super Bowl.

From the 2000 campaign to 2009, here's the complete list of players with more catches or receiving yards than Holt:

You may have noticed there are no names—not Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, nobody. Holt paced all NFL wideouts for a full decade, and he's not in the Hall of Fame? Really?!

The Case Against

As with Manning and Rivers, the perception is Holt trailed the best players at his position during his era. He's a classic "Hall of Very Good" example for those who promote that theory.

I don't really have a compelling reason otherwise. He only scored 74 touchdowns, I guess? Holt's presence in St. Louis during the post-Greatest Show on Turf era didn't lead to postseason success, provided you ignore the Rams' five bottom-five defenses in a row?

(Please put Holt in the Hall.)

Curt Schilling

Status: Was not elected in 10 years on the BBWAA ballot nor by the Contemporary Baseball Era committee in 2022. He is still eligible via the latter path.

The Case For

If championships matter, Curt Schilling is a Hall of Famer. There is absolutely no argument to the contrary.

Schilling posted a combined 10-1 record with a 2.18 ERA during three championship runs on the Arizona Diamondbacks (2001) and Boston Red Sox (2004, 2007). He won a World Series MVP with Arizona and came up monstrously clutch for Boston in both of those seasons.

Tether that playoff success with 216 career wins and solid regular-season numbers—plus three years as the Cy Young runner-up—and Schilling has a very strong case for inclusion.

The Case Against

In short, we're talking about the "character clause" that voters can invoke in denying a worthy candidate. It's a nebulous idea, really, and rooted in a voter's own morals, values, ideologies and so on.

Look, I'm not here to defend Schilling. His post-career life is controversial, to put it kindly. Based on historical standards, though, it's tough to muster an argument Schilling lacked something on the field that is preventing him from receiving the Hall of Fame call.

Billy Wagner

Status: Is in his 10th and final year on the BBWAA ballot.

The Case For

We've already mentioned a few players who aren't inducted because they weren't the best at their position.

You know who was? Billy Wagner.

The man terrified hitters in late-inning moments. An electric fastball and sweeping slider propelled Wagner to become only the fifth closer to ever record 400 saves. Wagner, a seven-time All-Star with a career 2.31 ERA, struck out nearly 12 batters per nine innings.

The Case Against

Similar to kickers, punters and returners in the NFL, an MLB closer just doesn't enter the game as often. Fair or not, that's the foundation of a perceived anti-reliever/closer bias in Hall of Fame voting.

Those who value postseason performance could shy from Wagner because of his 10.03 ERA in 14 playoff appearances. It's worth noting, at the very least, that it's both an objectively ugly number and also resulted in just one blown save and one loss.

Alexander Mogilny

Status: Eligible since 2009

The Case For

From a numbers perspective, Alexander Mogilny has an awfully strong case. He scored 473 goals and surpassed 1,000 points in fewer than 1,000 games played throughout a 16-year NHL career.

Additionally, the Hockey Hall of Fame basis of selection includes "contributions ... to the game of hockey in general." It should not be controversial to say that Mogilny, the first Russian player to defect from the Soviet Union, made a pretty substantial contribution to the game of hockey.

The Case Against

You could mention the political landscape, sure. But it's not like every Russian player is being ignored; Detroit Red Wings legend Pavel Datsyuk was a member of the 2024 class.

The more likely explanation is the memories of being called lazy or selfish—subjective, yes—and inconsistency. He flashed greatness with a 76-goal campaign and later scored 55 in a season yet often dipped below a point-per-game rate while missing 20-plus games.

While he would be a deserving pick, Mogilny does not have a flawless resume from his time in North America.

Derrick Rose

Status: Eligible in 2028

The Case For

In the history of the NBA, every league MVP is enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame or will soon be headed that direction. The lone outlier is Derrick Rose, whose candidacy is rather fascinating.

Rose burst onto the scene with the Chicago Bulls as the Rookie of the Year and became the youngest to win the MVP at 22. Rose's explosiveness was unmatched. At his peak, he was amazing.

Since the Basketball Hall of Fame isn't not limited to the NBA, Rose's two FIBA World Cup golds are a bonus, as well.

The Case Against

He'll probably get in.

Also, should three-and-a-half seasons of superstardom be enough?

Rose was really good before a devastating knee injury in 2012. Truly exceptional. Following his return, however, he never performed at that level again. He later carved out a place as a sixth man and enjoyed a nice career, but "nice" is not Hall of Fame-worthy.

Throw in that Rose was largely an inefficient shooter and subpar defender, and there's at least a conversation here.

LaMarcus Aldridge

Status: Eligible in 2026

The Case For

LaMarcus Aldridge's resume is quietly pretty good.

During his 16 seasons, he was a five-time All-NBA selection. Among the 76 players in history with five-plus All-NBA honors, 55 are already in the Basketball Hall of Fame—and 15 more are still active. In short, Aldridge is clearly in a tremendous position to make it.

Aldridge is one of only 24 players to surpass 20,000 points and 8,000 rebounds in their career. He was a reliable defender, too.

The Case Against

Meanwhile, his resume lacks the shiny object.

Aldridge never received more than a handful of non-winning MVP votes or played in the NBA Finals, let alone won a championship. He didn't land a first-team All-NBA, All-Defense or some other high-end recognition.

Wherever the line between "terrific" and "Hall of Fame" player resides, Aldridge is soundly in that range.