I wouldn't say I'm upset, I just loathe that tactic in debates/arguments, because imo it's lazy. It'd be the same as dismissing praise of Young by saying, "You guys are just drinking the kool-aid". To be fair, the "debate" is based on whether or not people think the most important thing a player can do is hit singles. The vast majority of people in this discussion seem to feel that isn't true, so no I don't think it's a stretch to say that he's not a legit HOF candidate. It doesn't feel like a debate to me, that's just imo, to me a debate needs more balance & this seems pretty one-sided in the "no" camp. Well, if you don't "buy" that era is important, I don't know how this can be an objective discussion. Hitting today is also better than ever before, which means that singles specialists like Young no longer carry the same value they once did. He's solid, he's a 'ring of honor' type that his own club can recognize, but he doesn't belong anywhere near a serious HOF discussion imo.