[Alberta's Child]

I agree with all of them except Ozzie Smith. Rice would have been more deserving if he had a longer career and hit some key milestones like 500 home runs and/or 3,000 hits. A .300 career average would have helped make a stronger case for him, too.

In baseball, I consider a player to be a legitimate Hall of Fame contender if he meets one or both of the following descriptions:

1. He was one of the best at his position over a decade or more.

2. He was a dominant player for a shorter period but was at the top of his game for so long that he put up impressive career totals.

Ozzie Smith doesn't fit the latter description but he definitely fits the first. The case against Smith is more of a case against the nature of the shortstop position over much of baseball history than anything else. Personally, I find it hard to overlook a guy who was clearly one of the best shortstops in the game for 12-15 years, with 13 consecutive Gold Gloves and 15 All-Star Game appearances to show for it.

[stylin19a]

I like your criteria...

longevity is not supposed to be HOF criteria.
However, it got Ripken 3000 hits and how do you keep 3000 hits out of the HOF.

Used to be 400 homers were a lock for HOF...not so much anymore cause there a spit load of 500+ homer guys, of which a fistful of them wont be in the HOF.