[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I don’t lie, douchebag.

Then stop making claims of fact that are provable false, sir.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The point was argued that Rolen was not even the best player on his team, and I was asked if I thought Abreu was better on the Phillies and was told it was unfair to talk about the Cardinals because of Pujols. I pointed that Abreu was as good (better) and others were comparable the time he was in Philly– that’s not cherry picking–that’s looking at the seasons he played there. And answering that same question, I pointed out that Rolen was not even as good as Edmonds on his own team during his time in St. Louis, regardless of Pujols. Am I wrong? If so, does that make me a liar?

Pujols was better. Edmonds and Abreu had some years that are better than some of Rolen's years. That, of course, is not and never has been a standard for the Hall. Almost no player has been the best player on his team every year. How many HOFers have not had other HOF teammates? To say that Edmonds was better than Rolen some years is true, as I said above if you read, it's just irrelevant to the topic and an illogical standard created only for one player and used only for that player because it suits what you want.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

If you insist on some sort of victory in my bringing up Brogna, go right ahead champ. Also feel free to convince yourself that Rolen had HOF stature even on his own teams, much less in comparison to the rest of the league. I disagree. Give me the analytics to discount, ignore or disregard the fact that Rolen never finished in the top 10 of any remarkable category.

It's not about victory, it's about actual fact. People who completely make up claims to fact that do not survive even a cursory check tend to get told that. Sucks.

Yogi Berra didn't lead the league much or at all either, and no one wants to keep him out. You could make a reasonable argument that he was never top of the league, but you don't need to lie and exaggerate in your claims to fact to do this - Rolen's ink is low.

But yet again, you have just made claims to fact that are completely false. "Give me the analytics to discount, ignore or disregard the fact that Rolen never finished in the top 10 of any remarkable category". This is completely and absolutely false, it is not a fact. Rolen did, in fact, finish in the top 10 in significant categories like slugging %, OPS+, on base %, dWAR, range factor, and many more. This information is publicly available and easily accessible to anyone here https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...olensc01.shtml in the Leaderboards section. Again, you are just completely making things up.

You can make a reasoned argument against Rolen, at best he's in the lower part of the Hall of the Fame. You don't need to keep lying to do it.