Good arguments on both sides.
You can't put every player who's better than Rick Ferrell or Dave Bancroft in the Hall, but you absolutely should give strong consideration to players who are as good or better than a number of other HOFers at their position, and to players who dominated their league at their position for a decade or more.
I grew up watching baseball in the 60s and 70s -- Ron Santo was THE NL third baseman of the era (no offense to the Boyers), just as Brooks was in the AL. Brooks was a little better, but Santo absolutely should be in the Hall (and hopefully will be when they consider his era in the new balloting).
I agree with the previous poster about Garvey being a dominant player during his era -- it's hard to ignore that. Al Oliver on the other hand, had some nice numbers, but was never on the same level as Garvey.
Ted Simmons has hitting stats as a catcher that compare favorably with most other HOF catchers -- if he made it, it certainly wouldn't be watering down the Hall.
Much of this come downs to what each of us believes the HOF should be -- some think it's only for Ruth, Wagner, Hornsby, Dimaggio, Mays, etc. But it's clearly not that. My very unscientific view has always been that if a player was the dominant force at his position in his league for 10-15 years, racking up batting titles, MVPs, All-Star nods and Gold Gloves, he is most likely a Hall of Famer (Gil Hodges, Tony Oliva, Santo, Dale Murphy).
One thing is absolutely certain -- this sure is fun to talk about.
Greg
http://www.baseballbasement.com