I'm curious as to how the other owners evaluate HOF nominees.
Do you take positional scarcity/difficulty into account?
Here's my current example:
I'm in a world which is in its 24th season and has a very small HOF. Every HOF is different, obviously, but I'm currently arguing on behalf of this guy: Tito Koh, CF
. (He's not even my guy, so I don't really know why I'm arguing so forcefully for him.)
My quick take is that he gave you about all you can ask for from a CF. He didn't win GGs, but he had the range for the position and racked up 81 + plays to 37 - plays, and was clearly the best offensive CF the world's ever had (615 HRs). Poor BR IQ, so he only stole about 10 bags a season. The only real knock against him is a .270 career BA.
For comparison's sake, would you vote in a 1B/COF with very similar #s but a .300 career average and NOT this CF? Or neither, or both?
I put a lot of emphasis on the difficulty of finding a solid power hitter at the CF/SS spots without playing people out of position. For others, it's all about the offensive numbers.