Posted By:
Kevin CummingsIt made all the work worthwhile! 
Seriously though, as I replied to Jay, ranking players with statistics is useful up to a point (pretty valid when comparing players of the same era, but somewhat flawed when comparing players from different eras), but some consideration has to be given to intangibles such as to whether the player was a catalyst for a significant change in the sport or was so adept at his one distinct skill for an extended period of time that it overrides average skills in other areas.
Of course, Hoss Radbourne belongs in the Hall. I don't think he was the 19th century's premier pitcher, however - Kid Nichols was. Hoss is probably second best, although I could be convinced that he was third behind Amos Rusie.
I'm also a big fan of pinch hitters and relief pitchers - clearly not careers for the weak of heart - but it's harder to justify these contributors as HOF worthy. I've said it before in this forum - I think the save statistic as it is currently configured is a joke. Unless it were significantly tightened up retroactively, relievers would have to be judged in some other way in addition to this criteria.
I guess it really comes down to this - was the player superior or better yet dominant at what he did for an extended period of time so that he elevated his team or the game in general to a point where it would not have been had he not played. Easy, huh? 