[TheRockCT]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by JimServo:
<strong>Alan Trammell, and Larkin should probably get in. However, I don't like the argument that because THIS guy is in the hall, then THIS guy should be in the hall. For more on those questionable picks (Bancroft, Schalk) be sure to read Bill James's The Politics of Glory. Classic stuff.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">For those who haven't read this, could you elaborate or expand upon your reasoning? For what reasons other than statistical production on offense and defense should a player get into the Hall of Fame? So why is the argument that I began regarding players like Dave Bancroft and Ray Schalk apparently not a valid or strong case? I would be interested in reading the source that you stated, but until then if you could just offer up or divulge a handful of reasons on why the comparison of people that are on the borderline of the Hall (Larkin & Trammell) and those who have been questionably let in is not a good argument to make, that would be great.