•  Or was it that he only averaged 37 homers per full season (more than Ripken ever hit in one year)
  
•  Or was it that he only hit .320 over those 6 years (Ripken hit over .320 in one full season in his career, and had a .280 lifetime average)
  
•  Or was it Foxx's .420 OBP?  Ripken's lifetime was .340 with a career high of .375
  
•  Foxx's Slugging during that time?  over .600.  Ripken's career high was .566
  
•  Foxx walked 19% of the time and Kd 17%.  Ripken walked less than 10% of the time and Kd 11%

After 1991 he trailed off and was simply a good to very good player the rest of his career, but that added ten seasons of goodness on top of ten seasons of greatness. He excelled in all three categories -- total career value, peak and average.

Of course, it's entirely possible that we have not yet seen Pujol's best seasons yet and those dates could come sooner.

I-Rod is pretty close to belonging in the discussion too. He was pretty close to getting an HM.

But it's pointless.  It's too late.  You've made your top 20 picks and have said that those are the 20 and they aren't up for debate, so what's the point debating them.

If Ripken were more valuable to the Orioles than Foxx was to the As or Sox then why did Foxx finish in the top 15 in MVP voting 9 times and Ripken only 4?

By way of example, let's take a pretty good recent 2B, Roberto Alomar.  In 1991, when he won the gold glove, he had 780 outs made in 160 games.  In 1922, after the way managers played 2B had already clearly changed, Hornsby made 872 outs in 154 games, and actually had more touches than Alomar while making 15 more errors.  They were also about even on double plays - 81 for Alomar and 79 for Hornsby.  

I'm not saying that Hornsby was as good of a defender as Alomar (contemporary writers tended to think he was somewhat of a butcher there, if anything), but I am saying that the argument that 2B was a different position when Hornsby played there is erroneous.  If I was saying that Nap Lajoie was in the top 10 (I personally think he has a good case for the top 20, although I know most disagree), then you have a point, but the point doesn't hold water for Hornsby.

To me, all-time means the greatest from their eras.  Otherwise, if we view this as a "could Johann Santana strike out Ty Cobb" question, the more recent players will virtually always have the advantage, and that makes for a pretty boring list.

Which years were those?  The 10 seasons where he had 200 or more hits (including one at age 38)?  Or the 17 seasons when he made the All-Star team?  Or perhaps you're thinking of the 15 seasons (9 in a row) that he hit over .300?  Yes, he tailed off after age 40, but who didn't?

To answer your question, I do credit his durability.  After all, we call them counting stats for a reason.  They are to be counted, and the more games you play, the more chance you have to amass those gaudy totals.  Rose is 10th on the Runs Created list, 5th in runs scored, and obviously tops in hits and a number of other categories.

With someone like Rose, who compiled massive numbers but did so while maintaining solid career averages (and did it all with a spark that was undeniable), there's no question to me he's one of the all-time greats.