[GaryPassamonte]

Joe, I'll play devil's advocate on the Deacon White case. Although White was a very good player for many years, he was not great. During a 20 year career, he rarely was a league leader in either offensive or defensive categories. White's strength lies in his longevity. He built a solid career, but HOF, I'm not sure. As I stated in a prior post, White received only 1 vote in 1936 and wasn't even a suggested candidate on the ballot. He was more of a write in choice. In 1936 he was no more forgotten than any other 19th century player, so he was considered on an equal basis with the other players.
Now, my Ross Barnes plug. His career follows a path almost the opposite of White. He was the star of professional baseball from 1871-1876 and a great player. He was a league leader in almost every category. There is no disputing this. Yet, his career was soon over and he was out of baseball by age 31. In the 1936 HOF election, Barnes was a suggested candidate and received 3 votes.
We can debate whether HOF election should reward short term greatness over long term consistency all day, but in many HOF discussions on this board we usually prefer to remove the Mazeroskis and Suttons more than the Koufaxs and Josses. White's credentials are similar to Sutton's and Barnes's are similar to Koufax's. Long term consistency versus short term greatness. What's your preference?