[sayhey24]

Let me begin by saying there are few things more fun than Hall of Fame arguments.

As for Jake Daubert's unfortunate early death -- he was 40 years old when he died -- his career was probably not going to last much longer.

Again, Jake Daubert was very good -- much like Stuffy McInnis and Ed Konetchy from his era, much like Mark Grace and Will Clark from a more recent era. He was not as good as Keith Hernandez. All those names I just mentioned are simply not Hall of Fame caliber (although I would argue that maybe Hernandez is).

Bill James, mentioned before as the definitive source on this, ranks Daubert as the 61st best first baseman of all time. Among those ahead of him -- Hernandez, Clark, Konetchy, Joe Judge, Boog Powell, Cecil Cooper, Wally Joyner, Gil Hodges, Ted Klu, Bill White, John Mayberry, Ron Fairly, Steve Garvey, Norm Cash, Dic Allen and Mickey Vernon. I'm not saying they are all better than Daubert, but some of them certainly are. All told James says 60 first basemen are better than Daubert.

If you're looking for someone who's career was actually ended in it's prime and who deserves HOF consideration, it would be Cecil Travis. A great hitting shortstop, underrated in part because he played for the woeful Senators -- his military service in WWII cut short what may have been a 3,000 hit career. In the 1941 season of Dimaggio's streak and Williams' triple crown, it was Travis who led the American League in hits. It's impossible to say what might have been, but shouldn't a player who had the credentials that Travis did be given a lot of credit for what he lost serving his nation as part of our Greatest Generation?

Greg