18.1 proposed direction

I think that the automatic add idea of the six awards winners each year is a great idea. I would also like to see more contemporary cards. Perhaps in the spring we could vote in 10 players from the previous season after the new cards come out. That still leaves about 92% of the adds per year coming from the other interest groups. All of the new cards, are by definition, super advanced and can potentially fill slots at any cap level, i.e. Chone Figgins. There is also the significant piece about knowing exactly what the cards look like from this era, thus enabling us to avoid the recent Johnny Mize debacle, adding an essentially useless card (and I voted for him FWIW). I'd even be willing to agree to no pre-1884 adds, although for the life of me I can't understand why cards from 1884-1893 are lumped in the same category as pre-1884 cards. Moving the mound back 10 feet was a big deal in 1894 but after that pitchers seemed to adapt and hitting more or less returned to "normal levels." Andy's argument about the underhand pitch and batters calling for pitch placement prior 1884, at least makes some sense, although it seemed that the majority of voters in Steve's poll prefer no moratorium on early players being added, but Andy is such a vocal proponent for his interests that sometimes it seems like they are what the community wants - but the poll does suggest otherwise.

Nostra-Saltus predicted the results would be that the community preferred to add the pre-1894 cards fwiw.

Personally I also think there is a lot of interest in some of the current top players being added;
when we count those from the post 2000 era and see a large number-- the reason includes franchises like Tampa Bay getting a whole team, for example.

1-I would hardly think that a 56% majority (where 27 people voted) is a mandate on what the community wants.

2-I never said I speak for the community. Me stating what I prefer is no different than anyone else stating what he prefers. I think it's called an opinion.

3-Do whatever the community wants. Fine with me.

Andy: Didn't say it was a mandate. I said it "suggests." The fact that most people didn't vote could be construed as their not caring one way or another about the issue. On the other hand .560 is great winning pct. in strat and might be considered close to a landslide in a presidential election and is a lot closer to a mandate than 44%.

I disagree that your opinions are no different than anyone else here. You actively and frequently express your opinions and appear to have the ear of Rosie and Mr. Garcia, thus you are influential. But when someone is persistent in expressing what they want I believe the characterization of "vocal proponent" is completely accurate. Salt and I are also both vocal proponents for what we want. We all want essentially the same thing, influence over what cards get selected. Fact is you were very persistent over time in expressing yourself on the pre 1884 cards and, for whatever reason, Rosie went with your views.

[quote="andycummings65"]1-I would hardly think that a 56% majority (where 27 people voted) is a mandate on what the community wants.

Who said a 'Mandate'???
'PREFERRED', meaning more want it than not, simple as that- and probably a bunch just don't give a crap and are wondering why its even an issue.

Why is this an argument?
If someone doesn't want a set with certain cards- just exclude them in the draft description-- its already being done with the 'no yankees' 'no redsox' no player over this or that leagues--

I think that as a matter of course the first 6 adds each year should be the previous season's 2 MVPs, 2 Cy Youngs, and 2 ROYs. No qualification, no debate.

Thoughts?

While I recognize this concept has merit, we have so many other holes to fill from years gone by that active players are lower on the current priority list. As always happy to engage in a deeper discussion if there's passionate interest.

Not sure why the current ROY winners would warrant being automatically added before the many years of prior winners that are not in the set. There are a bunch of them...

I guess I can cross off mathematician as a profession for those on this post. Its obvious to me we have many intelligent folks in our community, but to categorize the recent poll as anything but one data point is inaccurate. The results don't tell me anything definitive for a few reasons.
1) Its one sample
2) the results are well within what would be the standard deviation if we were to conduct say 20 more of the same exact poll
3) the results also seem to be within the standard error

When data is analyzed many data points are collected, plotted and then reviewed for tendencies. Which means that samples that fall within the standard deviation are removed. So if the results that are remaining swing one way or the other THEN there's something to think about.

Now if the results of the poll were something like 20-7 one way or the other, then that would be something to take notice of, with further analysis dependent on projected impact and priority.

This matters to me because the default for ATG is the whole set, see Barnstormers.

Regarding Mize, debacle? Its statements like these that make me wonder. We added a HOF's season where he had his career high in HR's, RBI, R's and now he has a Giants card, which really completes his SOM profile. That's a win in my book.

Rosie-
why take these hard positions and then force people to prove that either the community gets fed up with that process, or at the very least mildly disagrees?

This is a perfect example; instead of acknowledging that at a bare minimum, a small majority have expressed a differing opinion, you go out of your way to characterize it as meaningless data.

I give you credit for at least bending when its a clear cut case of the community wants something different; but really its like you adopt someone's position (see pre-1900 cards, post 2000 cards, current players, adding a whole team, barnstormers) and then dissent is characterized as a 'vocal minority'.

Rosie-
why take these hard positions and then force people to prove that either the community gets fed up with that process, or at the very least mildly disagrees?

This is a perfect example; instead of acknowledging that at a bare minimum, a small majority have expressed a differing opinion, you go out of your way to characterize it as meaningless data.

I give you credit for at least bending when its a clear cut case of the community wants something different; but really its like you adopt someone's position (see pre-1900 cards, post 2000 cards, current players, adding a whole team, barnstormers) and then dissent is characterized as a 'vocal minority'.

That's just it, I don't see it as a small majority expressing a different opinion. I see it as a piece of information that once you take into account the laws of math, doesn't conclusively tell me anything. If it was 15-12 the other way I'd read it exactly the same.

Salty you use phrases like hard positions, force, dissent, vocal minority. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very process that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a forum and create some interest in the cards you want.

Cheers
Rosie

Salty you use phrases like hard positions, force, dissent, vocal minority. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very process that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a forum and create some interest in the cards you want.

Cheers
Rosie

Check your ego, sir, and do whats best for the community, not me, and not your cronies.
No one 'sleeps under your blanket'--
you aren't 'providing' for the community; damn man, you are getting drunk off your little bit of power.