Bobby Grich to Cooperstown?

I love Bobby!

This is why you always have to normalize stats, I mean at least normalize for league, that is so easy.

But, is he a HOF candidate?  To find out, we look at the numbers. And your link provides a lot of numbers that argue for BG. So therefore you accept the Mr.Pinhead and the calculator idea. But, "On occasion, the opposite happens..." ? What does that mean?  Numbers are numbers, and they tell a story. Accept it or do not.  
As a card-carring member of the Number-Crunching Mister Spock Cocksucking Fraternity, I demand an explanation.

I get laid every day, here in the Philippines. (I will not go into detail).  But seriously, check out Economist.com. The latest issue may be of some interest. There is even a reference to Spock, which you may enjoy.

#11's case, those not as good as Grich's, is similar in that an objective look at his career stats has him a lot closer to Cooperstown than people think.

The Economist article is subscription only, so I'll summarize: Almost no one, even the most rational, Spock or Data types, makes decisions on rationality alone. Emotions always underpin your choices. So? Well, Maybe emotional response to BG is your impetus to look for the numbers to prove his worth. But do you only use stats when they please you, or prove a point you (emotionally) want to make? And do you overlook stats when they do not correspond to your emotional response?
But then you might ask, if we strip our passion for baseball of emotion, is it still fun? Do I, as an A's fan, get any pleasure with an economist GM who makes many good decisions based upon logic, but produces a team in constant transition? No. Do I miss my favorite players, when they are jettisoned do to forces beyond the team's control? Yes.
Spock or Data might respond: there are too many variables. Baseball is primarily a game of luck and chance, given the high level of talent--and the rarity of a truly great player. Most MLB employees are at roughly the same skill level. Therefore, to take out the emotional reponse to a player is akin to weeding out underperforming stocks in your portfolio. Buy low, sell high.
But what of the fans? If you are stuck with a low-revenue team, you suck it up and adapt to the Beane mentality. Or, you just say to hell with it. A small market gets one person smaller. (Or does it? I might not spend money on live games, but I will stay with them--emotional response, not logical). On the other end, a team with a very high revenue stream pays outrageous money for Barry Zito, because it cannot afford to alienate it's high-paying base. Is it logical? No. But humans are not reasonable creatures, as far as I know.
Does any of this make sense? Perhaps. I will finish with a quote from The Gratest Secretary Of Defence Our Country Has Ever Had:
"There are known knowns, and unknown knowns. Do we know them? No. But there are also known knows which we do not know. Do we know them? Yes. Some unknowns can be known, but at what cost? We ask these questions with the knowledge we have, not the knowledge we wished we had. Therefore, we act upon the knowledge we know, not the unknown knowns which we do not know."
Makes perfect sence, no?