Ernie Banks
Nomar Garciaparra
Derek Jeter
Rico Petrocelli
Pee Wee Reese
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Phil Rizzuto
Ozzie Smith
Honus Wagner
Robin Yount
Banks
Wagner
Rodriguez
Smith
Ripken
Appling
Vaughan
Yount
Larkin
Jeter
He was also a fave player of mine, and invented the one hop Astroturf throw to first. His best argument is that he was the best hitting SS of the 70’s and deserves to be in on that basis. I tend to take a broader view, and while yeah he outhit the likes of Tavarez, Belanger et al., his bat can’t stand up to the historical competition. He does compare favorably with the Oz on both sides of the ball, tho I’d prefer Ozzie’s walks to Davey’s extra base hits.
For the record, let me add how strongly I object to this reasoning which is pervasive on this HoF voting–and John, I find you among the LEAST quirky, subjective, biased voters here. If you grant that there were great ballplayers in the 19th century–and how could there possibly NOT have been at least a few ballplayers on the same level of skill as Cobb and Wagner and LaJoie and Mathewson and Johnson and Collins and Speaker and all those spectacular talents who played in the first few decades of the 20th century?-- but you’re refusing to cast a ballot for them because it’s too much trouble for you to look through flawed records to tell the wheat from the chaff, then we as a group are committing ourselves to doing an injustice to a group of great ballplayers who committed the crime of having played too long ago.
Which we are.
It’s up to the voters to make these decisions.
I’d remind you, though, that we do have a thread in which we can discuss the SDMB Hall of Fame effort, and can discuss methods for ensuring 19th century players are adequately represented, or if they should be. Accusations of perpetrating injustice are best raised there.
But posts proposing the systymatic perpetuating of injustice are best raised here?
Honus Wagner
Alex Rodriguez
Arky Vaughan
Cal Ripken
Robin Yount
Ernie Banks
Barry Larkin
Joe Cronin
Lou Boudreau
Luke Appling
Try a different tact, push for why you think the three you voted for deserve to be in. You didn’t even give a short blurb pushing your candidates. Why do you think George Davis, Herman Long & Honus Wagner belong. (OK, I don’t think you need to push for that last one. I am amazed anyone has left Wagner off their list.)
For the prior players I tried to provide some reason, I put less thought into SS than the others so I didn’t include many reasons this time.
I agree the older players need votes, but I am not convinced Davis and Long are more deserving than most of the players that are being voted for.
Persuade us. 
Sorry to offend yours (or anyone’s) sensibilities. The injustice is that the lens we have to look at them through is too flawed, too flawed for me (at least) to truly give them the justice of an informed vote. I’d rather withhold judgement than to commit to a vote borne more of ignorance than enlightenment.
Okay, but the problem I’m addressing is the necessity of persuasion–after the votes have been counted. This is why I think a preliminary round, followed by months of arguing and discussion, is necessary to an inclusive HoF. As I’ve noted several times, what are electing here is a HoF of the past 100 years, witih peculiar emphasis on the last 30 or 40 years, which is fine, but is not a HoF of organized baseball.
I’ll start with Herman Long, as he’s the least known of the three you asked about. Clark Griffith, long-time owner of the Washington Senators and himself a great pitcher of the 1890s and 1900s, put out an all-time all-star team of players he had seen himself in 1914:
C- Buck Ewing
1B–Charlie Comiskey
2B --Eddie Collins
SS–Honus Wagner
3B --Jimmy Collins
RF–Ty Cobb
CF–Tris Speaker
LF–Bill Lange
The starting four pitchers were Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, and Amos Rusie.
Why am I listing this team, since Griffiths did NOT list Herman Long as his all-time best shortstop over Honus Wagner? Well, the answer is–I lied. Long WAS his choice as the best shortstop ever, even as Wagner’s long career was coming to an end, and was obviously fresh in people’s minds.
Well, of course, Griffiths was laughed at for his ridiculous choice of a shortstop, and was soon carted off to a long stay in a mental hospital–NO, HE WASN’T.
No one said Boo, as far as I know, and if it was uncontroversial for Griffiths to choose Long over Wagner in 1914, and if you concede that it is amazing that anyone–even in 2008–would leave Wagner off his list of all time shortstops, I think you might concede that Long had something going for him.
Bill James (from whom I got the above data) lists Long as the “best unrecognized player of the 1890s,” and other writers who’ve studied the period list Long as a genuine superstar. But our brains have only room for so much data, and most fans probably pride themselves on knowing the names of a handful of 19th century players, or else tell themselves that the dearth of available data makes such knowledge unnecessary.
Eventually of course, the same logic will apply itself to players of the early twentieth century as well–you can see it happening here. Most of the players we’re choosing are players from the last few decades, and most of the players chosen from the earlier decades are players whose basic stats are enhanced by the periods they played in–sluggers from the 1920s on, high average guys from the period before WW II. The ease of publicity is the main factor here. The more you know about these players, especially if you’ve actually seen them play, the likelier it is that they’ll accrue votes. Are we willing to become educated about these great players we’ve never heard of? For the most part, no. We’re happy to vote our biases, and I’m good with that, as long as we acknowledge that our ignorance of Long’s achievements don’t diminish Long (or aggrandize Omar Vizquel), they just diminish our standing as electors of a HoF.
Davis has a stronger case than Long’s.
Agreed. And so does Bill Dahlen, according to the fine folks at the Hall of Merit.
And they’re in the middle of electing a HoF right now. Maybe I should just remove my ass to their election and not trouble you fine folks any further.
Not only is it a different time, it is a different game. I do not think you can relate. Great athletes,perhaps. But not by todays standards. Some may have been transitional talents. Their skill level may have been good enough to play the new game. But ,it is such a stab in the dark that I can not justify it.
It is not unlike the Negro Leagues. A lot is myth and faulty memory. I can not say that they would not have succeeded in the white game.I am sure they would have. But, It would be guessing to not only say they would but would have been better than the Major League counterparts. I find it a stretch.
And so convenient, too!
Actually, they’re all done. 
Why convenient. Give me a yardstick that makes sense and I will use it.
It’s convenient to use one’s own memory to select the greatest players ever, isn’t it? No books to read, no one’s opinions to put stock in or to deride, no tedious discussions about methodology. If you recognize the probability that the ballplayers you haven’t seen play are as good as those those you have seen play, though, then you’re committing yourself to the massive inconvenience of usng tools other than those contained in your memory.
It would be convenient of me, for example to limit my selections to those players I have seen, mostly Mets, Yankees, and Red Sox–I know very well who was a great player on those three teams over the past 40 years, and I can rank them quickly, pretty well, and easily using nothing outside of my own skull. What would you think of a HoF that I seriously argued, on the basis of my own experiences, that consisted mostly of Sox, Yankees and Mets of the last 40 years? My shortstop list would read
Nomar
Reyes
Jeter
Kubek
Harrelson
Dent
Burleson
Ordonez
Aparicio
Petrocelli
and I argued that these really were the only ones that I feel I’d seen enough of to make a judgment? You’d think I was pretty lazy and self-centered, wouldn’t you?
No A-Rod???
If that were the case. It is not. Living in an American League city I did not see Musial,Koufax, Duke Snider etc. Yet I can recognize their talent. I never saw Ruth play ,but his numbers are undeniable. I can compare them to everybody preceding him and after. But Home Run Baker just does not flt anymore. When the gap is too big.,when the comparisons are too strained, it becomes a wild guess.
And John Olerud, of course. Easy to recognize his talent, too.
gonzomax: Where do you draw the line? Bill Terry batted .401/.452/.619 in 1930. Sherry Magee batted .328/.396/.455 in 1907. Dick Allen batted .263/.352/.520 in 1968. And Fred McGriff batted .286/.394/.556 in 1992.
Can you tell from looking at that who on that list had the best offensive season and who had the worst?