That's interesting. It kind of supports my dislike of the DH rule. I wonder if other people feel that a player who is considered a DH is somehow not really HOF worthy? Seems rather contrary that you would create a "new" position for players to play, and by playing that position said player isn't really a "Baseball Player" and not to be considered for enshrinement, even if he is the best at it. At best it was a contrived rule to keep some slow, aging "greats" in the game longer, thus maintaining/increasing fan interest/revenue. But they just created a weaker variety of baseball in my opinion. Sure ,watching a pitcher hit is sometimes futile and painful, but it's also entertaining too. A good hitting pitcher has an advantage, and the variety of strategic options makes the game more interesting. Years ago I created the "Free Hitter" concept as a way to eliminate the DH but keep the idea somewhat. I tried, but it seems to not have gotten any further than a Baseball Weekly article. Pitchers hit, and a team has one opportunity per game to us a "Free Hitter", a pinch hitter who can bat and the player he hits for can stay in the game. We use it some when playing table top baseball games and its' pretty cool. You can have a bat-first bench player who effectively can bat twice in a game, once as a Free Hitter and once as a pinch hitter, both strategically placed. If he did this all year, thats 324 plate appearances and probably mostly at opportune moments. How many DH's get more?