[Chris Counts]

"The HOF decision should be able to be made in a nano-second. The longer you have to debate it, the less the player deserves enshrinement."

What other important and permanent decisions in life do we make without careful consideration. I've heard this argument before regarding other candidates (someone else brought it up in this thread), and I just don't buy it. There's a huge gap between the public's perception of how good a player was and what statistical analysis can prove about that same player. That's why Allen Iverson is getting a ton of all-star votes, even if he was unemployed recently. The average sports fan thinks he's star, but those who closely follow the game, and the examine the stats, know he's a ball hog with a low shooting percentage.

All I'm asking for is that those who judge Hall of Fame candidates do a bit of research first. Without having an understanding of how statistics change from era to era (hitting eras vs. pitching eras), and without taking into consideration innovations in statistics (like the vastly underrated on-base average), we might as well rely on our gut feelings. And that is how Rabbit Maranville got in the Hall of Fame.

As for Edgar Reneria, Larkin had much better place discipline (look it up) and was a much better fielder (Larkin has three Gold Gloves and Renteria has no range). Also, take a look at the number of MVP votes each received over his career. Larkin was definitely better than Renteria. And while I'm not advocating Renteria for the Hall of Fame (yet?), he is better than a few of the guys who were inducted ...