Oh, I don't disagree with that. The crux of my argument is that I think there are many HOF players who are enshrined largely due to their offensive contributions, who were not good enough defensively to have any positive impact to their team in that aspect of the game. Just playing the field shouldn't give you bonus points if you weren't particularly good there. On that basis, I think there's a bit of a double standard, or perhaps ignorance, with regards to the contributions of a DH in comparison. Someone else brought up Manny Ramirez. Great offensive player. Perhaps HOF worthy. But he's atrocious defensively. He hurts the team more than a DH who doesn't play the field. But that doesn't seem to figure into the HOF equation with position players who put up the offensive numbers.
And there's something of a double standard with regards to defense, too. Take Keith Hernandez. Well above average offensively. Arguably the best fielding first basemen ever. But his detractors will say that first base is not important enough of a defensive position for his defensive ability to put him over the top and into the HOF. Well, if some defensive positions aren't important enough, then why are we holding that against the DH's, most of whom would be playing the unimportant position of first base anyway!
Yeah, good point. I just don't want to ever get to the point where the Don Baylor's, Steve Balboni's, and Greg Luzniskis are up for the HOF because of their DH'ing.