You mean like when Barry Bonds referenced it could have added years to his career, and helped him maintain/stay at a higher level of hitting?
Guys actively want to be DH's for a reason. It's an easier way to play the game. It extends careers. And it extends careers because guys aren't on the field, they're not out there on their feet. They don't have to make the plays. It eliminates the guys from half the game.
And I just told you that guys can get into the HoF being bad at defense. But at least that's part of the definition/discussion of their career. So the subject matter then goes to what? Comparing DH's to other DH's? That presumes a DH is worthy of going in into the first place, and that's literally the starting point for this entire conversation.
Why would I vote someone who skipped half the game over someone who was good at hitting and fielding? The Larry Walker example that Buff brought up, for instance. Also, for your examples, you're citing to guys who are considered the best all time at defense.
There are layers of the conversation being ignored.
And it's not by me.