I am almost stunned at Jiminks image of the hall. If we adopted his attitude we'd only have an admission to the Hall once every five years or so. The Hall would wither and die away. To deny Larry Walker his due when he rates as just above the median of rightfielders elected to the Hall would be a travesty of justice, particularly while espousing the election of Kent. Election to the Hall is serious business and just because you don't like WAR doesn't mean it isn't a very good tool for ranking players. Any stat that rates HoFers and you come out in the top 50% at your position you have to go along with it barring other factors. And you objection to many players getting like Harold Baines can be attributed to the Veterans Committees in all there guises. That committee is useless. Tim Raines was the 2nd best leadoff hitter in the game. His problem was playing in Montreal all those years.
Larry Walker only played four full seasons out of 17, and only once did he play over a 150 games in a season. That is not a Hall of Famer to me. He won three batting titles in the light Colorado air, but Bill Madlock won 4 and he's never got a sniff at the Hall. He doesn't belong either. Walker is a near great, and not a Hall of Famer. I think he got in because the only competition he had this year was Derek Jeter. Otherwise, he wouldn't have made it, nor should he have as far as I am concerned. A Hall of Famer plays every day. Walker doesn't belong in the same class as Aaron, Clemente, Mays, Frank Robinson, Ty Cobb, Yaz, etc.
Jeff Kent was a fairly good defensive second baseman and one of the best hitters at that position. Raines had some very good years, but hung on for the last few years, and I think he's in the Larry Walker category as a near great instead of an all time great. Baines got to the Hall because he had friends on the Veterans Committee. That's not a new thing. Ford Frick got several people in who never deserved to be in the Hall.
WAR is a useless stat to many. Judging a star player by a minor leaguer or a fill in is a bad idea. Comparing full time players to full time players is a better way to look at it. There are many good analytic programs, but WAR isn't one of them. And analytics don't tell the whole story, anyway. You have to see the players play. I'll trust a seasoned veteran's opinion based on what he sees over a bunch of stats more often than not. Stats don't cover all the intangibles. You have to watch the game.