[Kenny Cole]

The problem with most of these HOF arguments is that there is an entire lack of context. Tommy McCarthy is my textbook example. You look at him and it is certainly fair to say that nothing about him stands out as a player statistically. But he was widely regarded as one of the smartest players of his time, was given credit (rightly or wrongly) for inventing the hit and run, etc. Clearly, he was held in enough esteem that he was elected despite his less than impressive stats as a player. Those stats don't look like much now but it doesn't matter because in the context of the time, he was perceived as one of the smartest, most innovative players who had ever played up to then. That's why he was elected.

I'll let Bill mount the argument for Hafey. IMO, he is in the bottom tier of those who have been elected. But there is always a bottom tier. If the HOF criteria is Ruth, then you only have Ruth and maybe Wiliams (or Bonds, which isn't an argument that I want to get into right now). That isn't a sustainable position. If the bottom tier isn't Hafey, its someone else and we're having the same argument, just about someone else.

My HOF definition is probably more expansive than that of others, so I don't have too much heartburn that he's in. I have more heartburn about the exclusion of players like Doyle, Phillippe, Stan Hack, Leever, Reulbach, Caruthers, Stovey, Van Haltren, Ryan, Bobby Matthews, Mullane, and several negro leaguers (such as Grant Johnson, Chet Brewer, Nip Winters, Ed Wesley, Oliver Marcelle, Dick Lundy and Bill Monroe among others), than I am exorcised about Hafey's election. Hafey got elected in part due to Frisch, but he was a pretty damn good ballplayer even before Frisch pimped him.