I don’t mean to turn the thread into a debate on logic, but you do realize (and a lot of people have said much the same thing) that if your standard for Hall of Fame induction is that there’s no argument, then you can’t have anyone in the Hall of Fame, right?
There HAS to be a line somewhere. Once you set the line, then players will be at that line, which means they’re arguable, which by the “if you have to argue their case they shouldn’t be in” standard, they’re not qualified. So now the line has moved up - and there are players on that line too.
Suppose you want only 50 players in the Hall of Fame. Fine, who are #50 and #51? I guarantee you can build an argument #51 should be #50 and vice versa so now they’re both out. According to The Sporting News, #50 is Roy Campanella, and #51 is, coincidentally, Rickey Henderson. Well, I disagree and think Rickey was better; we’re arguing, so out they go. Now the line’s at #49 (Tony Gwynn, according to TSN, which apparently is run by Padre fans if they ranked Gwynn over Rickey) He’s probably close to #48 (Reggie Jackson) so we can argue over him, so he’s out. And so on up the line, eliminating Yogi Berra and Mike Schmidt and Tris Speaker until you’re asking yourself who the best player in baseball history is, and a lot of people say Ruth but some say Mays and some say Bonds and the Boston fans want Williams, so they’re all out, because there’s a debate.
FTR, I don’t think there’s any reasonable debate over Henderson. The guy was a baseball machine.