WHY limit the pre 1900 players to 2nd tier?

Moderator: Palmtana

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

The Last Druid

  • Posts: 1906
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostWed Apr 29, 2020 8:27 pm

C'mon Garcia we want All ERAS as the Default.
Offline

Chris Franco

  • Posts: 358
  • Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:18 pm
  • Location: Florence South Carolina

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostWed Apr 29, 2020 8:35 pm

I’m sure most of you guys are aware the game changed dramatically rules wise in 1903 AL and 1901 NL.

I mean we are talking major things.

Like unlimited foul balls for a while. Or requesting where you wanted the pitch. Stuff like that.

Don’t get me wrong. I love it all. But I get it.

To me ...comparing some 1800s card year to say a 1950 card year is really apples and oranges.
Offline

Salty

  • Posts: 1684
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:54 pm

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostWed Apr 29, 2020 8:50 pm

Chris Franco wrote:I’m sure most of you guys are aware the game changed dramatically rules wise in 1903 AL and 1901 NL.

I mean we are talking major things.

Like unlimited foul balls for a while. Or requesting where you wanted the pitch. Stuff like that.

Don’t get me wrong. I love it all. But I get it.

To me ...comparing some 1800s card year to say a 1950 card year is really apples and oranges.


In that case you can't compare 1980s roids players to any others either-
but none of that is the actual point.
these arguments have already been hashed out and in the end...
WE the community voted on including these cards, that's why they are here in the first place.
Offline

coachprbb

  • Posts: 328
  • Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:33 am

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostWed Apr 29, 2020 8:56 pm

Can't find new players on draft list....severino, billingsley, holland? whats up with that
Offline

emart

  • Posts: 1351
  • Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:16 am

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostWed Apr 29, 2020 11:05 pm

The game is "All Time" greats and has been since its inception. Baseball has evolved over the years. The ATG game has always been about all eras. Why change now?
Offline

joethejet

  • Posts: 5218
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:04 pm
  • Location: SF Bay Area

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostThu Apr 30, 2020 12:17 am

The game played in the 1800's wasn't even baseball. You wouldn't recognize it as such anyway. The pitches threw underhand, 8 balls, no third strike on foul bunts, etc.

They probably don't belong at all IMHO.

As pointed out, the rules stabilized around 1901 so....
Offline

BC15NY

  • Posts: 1241
  • Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:43 am

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostThu Apr 30, 2020 8:53 am

joethejet wrote:The game played in the 1800's wasn't even baseball. You wouldn't recognize it as such anyway. The pitches threw underhand, 8 balls, no third strike on foul bunts, etc.

They probably don't belong at all IMHO.

As pointed out, the rules stabilized around 1901 so....


I disagree. They do belong, in my opinion. I believe baseball went to 60' 6" in 1893. Four balls became a walk in 1889. Foul bunts were classified as strikes in 1894. These players are part of baseball history, and many of them are in the hall of fame.
Offline

Salty

  • Posts: 1684
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:54 pm

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostThu Apr 30, 2020 9:12 am

BC15NY wrote:
joethejet wrote:The game played in the 1800's wasn't even baseball. You wouldn't recognize it as such anyway. The pitches threw underhand, 8 balls, no third strike on foul bunts, etc.

They probably don't belong at all IMHO.

As pointed out, the rules stabilized around 1901 so....


I disagree. They do belong, in my opinion. I believe baseball went to 60' 6" in 1893. Four balls became a walk in 1889. Foul bunts were classified as strikes in 1894. These players are part of baseball history, and many of them are in the hall of fame.



BCNY -- YEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!
The community as a whole clearly wants them- ergo, it should be the default setting.
this is the problem-- nobody is going to lodge a complaint in a survey for something we already have, so you are only going to get the negative responses, nobody is saying gee I should really let them know Id prefer it this way.
Same problem with the Super Reliever, although that's probably skewed to greater dislike- and had they only done either a price change or less innngs would have been sufficient.
Offline

honestiago

  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostThu Apr 30, 2020 9:16 am

This is not hard, folks. If you want the pre-1900s, just click the button.

On a personal note, I find the high-mindedness of "they're part of baseball history!" to be a tad disingenuous. These cards were selected to suit a style of play (10 of the 22 .400 hitters in the set are pre-1900). Most nominations are about getting better versions of specific players. Nature of the beast. That said, if we were actually, honestly, really worried about doing a "disservice" to the game, we'd drop the steroid HR hitters. Not to mention the racist Ty Cobb. How about all of the 1919 Black Sox?

But, of course, this isn't about any of that. It's just a dice game. Some of us are taking this (and ourselves) entirely too seriously. Let's play ball, shall we?
Last edited by honestiago on Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Salty

  • Posts: 1684
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:54 pm

Re: WHY eliminate pre 1900 players?

PostThu Apr 30, 2020 9:20 am

honestiago wrote:This is not hard, folks. If you want the pre-1900s, just click the button.


Its just something that should be automatic- and you see a bunch of folks who started leagues yesterday didn't actually realize what the issue was- as I spoke to the commish of one of em-
so difficulty aside why not make it the default?
PreviousNext

Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: All-Time Greats

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests