Frank White for the Hall of Fame?

What is our definition of a great ball player?  Do we limit our perceptions to how many homeruns a player hit, his batting average, how instrumental he was to a winning team?  What about fielding statistics?

No one will argue that Frank White was not a fan favorite in Kansas City, often times rivaling the love Kansas City had for George Brett.  Frank was known around the baseball world when he played, but he was not a common household name.  This is most likley due to his "blue collar" status (no pun intended).  Frank was not a homerun hitter, he was not a great average hitter, he was not the fastest guy on the field.  But, Frank had one of the best gloves in the game, and was a key part of the 10 year dominance that Kansas City experinced between 1976 and 1985.  

Frank was choosen to be an all-star in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, and 1986.  Frank won Gold gloves in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1986, and 1987. White was the only secondbaseman in baseball History to win 6 consecutive gold gloves!  Frank led the leauge in fielding percentage three times during his career!  He was obviously a dominant force for the position he played.  

The main argument against putting Frank into the Hall is that it might be lowering the standards of who gets in.  There is an agrument that Frank is not really a multi-dimensional player because he was not a fantastic hitter.  Question, how many gold gloves did Reggie Jackson win?  Reggie seems to be a one dimensional player also.  Sure Reggie could hit the ball far, but his career batting average was only .262 (White was .255) and he was not neccesarly a gold glove fielder.  But, Reggie was able to please the fans with homeruns and arrogance.  It also didn't hurt that he played for a major market team with lots of sports coverage.  

Another similarity between Frank and Reggie is that both were key ingediants in thier dominant teams.  From 1976 - 1985, the Royals were a team to be feared in the AL West.  Reggie was apart of the great A's teams and %*&@ yankees teams of the late 70's.  Both played for winners, both helped their team to be winners.  

The major differance is that fielding is not seen in the same light as being able to hit a ball far.  There is no statistic for spectacular fielding plays and fielding statistics are often overlooked in selection to the Hall.  Admitting Frank into the Hall based primary upon his fielding stats would not lower the Hall's standards.  People can ohhh and awe over the distance a man can place the ball from homeplate, but true baseball aficianados (spelling?) realize that a spectacualar fielding effort and a smooth double play are just as important to being a great player.  Ozzie Smith got in due to his fielding, why can't Frank.

One of the major problems Frank had to endure during his career was George Brett.  Brett being the hero of Kansas City, the popular player, the smooth swing, the great heroics, often out shined Frank.  Brett got all the press, White went out and did his job.  Frank was a blue collar hero, and George was the mega star.  People care more about hitting .390 than winning an unprecedented 6 straight gold gloves.  That is just the nature of the fan though.  Does that mean Frank should be denied the Hall because he was overshadowed for the majority of his career by another star?  No.  Frank was a great player, a great fielder and could hold his own against players that were thought to be guarenteed hall of famers.  

Frank was not a flash in the pan, he was an intergal part of the (although long since past) winning tradition of Kansas city.  He was arguably one of the top 5 secondbasemen in the history of the game.  His only problem was that he was a good guy, not needing attention, not needing to make the front of the sports page everyday.  He did his job, he gave homage to the baseball gods, he played his heart out, and he was a winner.  

PUT FRANK IN THE HALL!!!!!

p.s. if Jose Canseco ever makes the hall, I will quit watching baseball.