Playing for five teams has nothing to do with whether he was a game changer for them and produced numbers that validate his position in the HOF.
TO may not be a great human being, and maybe even a bad teammate sometimes - there are far worse people - but his career makes him HOF worthy. All of these post facto rationalizations that are used to justify obvious biases of the selection committee mean absolutely nothing. Why are media members who never played the sport at the same level even part of the selection committee anyways? What justifies their capability to choose whether a player is HOF worthy or not if their biases are going to interfere with the process?
