[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, this is the post you were referencing when you said people were trolling you:

[ QUOTE ]
If the BBWAA gave you a ballot, and you voted for players based on who you thought the other voters would be voting for, you'd be a goddamn moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, no one ever even called you a moron directly, and you were being unreasonably defensive.

I've continued to call your arguments moronic because, in my opinion, they are. No one's asking you to be 100% objective. But you apparently don't mind being 100% subjective, pushing aside all data put in front of you because of you were "more in awe" of Rice in his career than you were of Raines.

When someone says to you, "Hey buddy, if you're going to vote Jim Rice in you have to vote Tim Raines in because these stats that compare players to other players in their era and then to all other players in other eras," and you simply push that aside without rhyme or reason, you're arguing very stupidly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not merely pushing Raines' stats aside. If you go back to my second post in the thread, I suggested he comes up just short of inclusion. I looked at things such as, even as a leadoff hitter in an offensive era, he had not even one 200 hit season. Yes, he walked a lot, but never as many as 100 times a season. As a leadoff hitter, he's supposed to walk a lot and take a lot of pitches, and the fact his walk total should be way beyond Rice's. He had six 100 run seasons, and I expected to find more.

Those are all still fine accomplishments, but aside from his stolen bases, the rest of his raw numbers struck me more as the cumulation of a long career more than a career that was truly HOF-worthy.

Obviously, you can (and do) disagree with my interpretation of his stats, but to say my opinion completely disregards objective stats is rather disingenuous.

As for moronic comments, you were clearly, yet indirectly, slapping me with the moron label, even if you didn't say "mondo, you're a moron".