You might be able to argue that he should not be in the HoF if he retired tomorrow. Lots of folks with 10 titles, after all. It is a definite achievement, but perhaps not worthy of being called the cream of the cream of the crop. He's been a top-10 player for only a few years, he doesn't have the history of being a big name like most of the HoF does. In that sense, maybe putting him in the HoF is premature.
But PA is only in his mid-30s, barring injury he's probably got another 10 years left in him. I'll be surprised if he doesn't pick up another 5-7 titles in that time. He hits 15 titles and starts brushing the $1.5M mark, you might could wonder why he isn't in the HoF. That's a much higher level of performance over a longer period of time and makes it almost a no-brainer to HoF him.
I'd kinda like to see a point system instead of the hard criteria they have now. 1 point for a standard title, three or four points for a major title. A point for, say, a 300 on TV or ## TV appearances. 5 points for a 20-year career. A couple of points for each million in career earnings. A point for a worthwhile record that stands for more than X years. You want to be eligible for the HoF, you need 30 points. The guy who gets red-hot for two or three years but quits or gets hit by a but might not get in. No way to know if his performance was really sustainable. The guy who spends 30 years on the tour, wins every couple of years, makes a few shows every year, and stands the test of time, he gets in.
SH
