This all comes back to the whole "career vs prime years" debate. Generally speaking, especially nowadays, guys are measured by their entire career when considering HOF merits. A better question might be, what kind of support would these guys get now?
Frankly, I think anyone in the Hall deserves to stay there - it would take a hell of a lot of people voting soley based on someone being a "good guy" or a "gamer" for them to get into the hall. I don't see it happening. I think the criteria has just changed a bit over the years.
Though I don't necessarily support how jrd is trying to make his point, 5000 innings of "X" productivity is a lot more valuable than 3000 innings of "X" productivity, even though both guys are giving you the exact same thing while being on the field. I won't put words in jrd's mouth, but I think he's trying to say that Carlton had a better career (which he did), while Mike and tec are saying that Carlton was equal in talent to Hunter (which is not a far-fetched argument).