ATG Poll #5- Additional Players

BUT-- now we are going to take away from adding guys that 'might' play at all cap levels to get a franchise guys in--
then next vote will be a franchise vote where we get one guy who gets used at a high cap level--- UGH.

Umm, how many $10 million caliber seasons do you think there are, other than by adding more Ruths, and Mantles, and Hornsbys? It looks to me like the guy with the highest WAR on bbref that isn't a pitcher from before 1894 and isn't already represented by a high quality card is Jouett Meeker, who was a pitcher in (you guessed it) 1894. He was very good that year, but Amos Rusie was better, and I doubt that his 1894 card is much better than the 1897 one that we have for him.

I think the best hitter card available to us (other than Mike Trout, who will doubtless be added in a few years) is Terry Turner 1906, a SS with a .709 OPS who made 36 errors that year. There just aren't any impact cards to be added at the high caps if WAR is an accurate measure of the SOM cards.

Fortunately, there is a very loose correlation between WAR and SOM card value. I'm sure there are some hidden gems available. And please don't assume that the franchise guys are working at cross purposes. We are trying to get Javy Lopez, Sandy Alomar Jr., Mark Loretta and Luke Easter added, all with cards that seem playable at any cap. Also we are trying to get better years for Harlond Clift, Joe Sewell, Ellis Burks, Rusty Staub, and George Kell added to deepen the 3B pool and add some interesting strategy choices like a SS-3e40 with a .935 OPS.

I wish we had access to all the card numbers, but unfortunately SOM seems to regard that information as a part of its revenue stream. And I don't really blame them, since you could easily write a software routine to create functional SOM cards from that data.

ID respectfully disagree on both counts---

There ARE a decent number of additions that can still impact the higher caps -- even a guy such as Pete Browning is a good add- (I can name a number just from the 07-14 set that could work)
why?
He gets drafted at all Cap levels.
But aside from that, as you have pointed out, the correlation isn't there between WAR and card.

There are clearly a number of guys who are nominated and voted in because they fill a franchise need but will very likely not be used at a higher cap.

Again, IF I played franchise leagues, Id most definitely want exactly those guys-- so am not placing blame on those who vote for that reason, BUT am pointing out that for those who play at all cap levels, the impact will not be very much if its only a few cards that get added maybe twice yearly.

[quoteAgain-- this could be solved a number of ways, including adding all 40 players,
or adding 20 PLUS adding a franchise or two each vote][/quote]

That's the first thing you've said all week that's been right Salty...

I don't care what they say about you Salty... 99% of it is true. But you are alright in my book.


LET'S JUST VOTE FOR 40 CARDS EVERY OTHER MONTH AND ADD ALL 40. PLEASE?...
That way both franchises and all caps get help.

im happy to agree that this would solve the issue.

And to prempt any issues of should a card be included am also happy to have a 400 minimum AB
100 inning starter
50 inning RP rule... or whatever if its not exactly those figures--

I may be in the minority here, but I like the voting process. It gets us talking about the relative values of the nominees and the changing needs and desires of the SOM players here -- the slight shift toward filling franchise needs over the big bangers and hard throwers of the 200mil crowd not that long ago. And talking is always a good thing: what is sports without the endless debate over "who is better", over the impossibility of comparing players across decades -- and yet impossible never stopped any of us.

A few suggestions that I would make: 1/that the elections come much closer together -- every two months, the usual practice of 40 nominations, 5 votes, 20 elected. If the votes were to come at an interval such as that, then we might conceive of creating parameters eventually for a particular vote -- only players from 1926 to 1957, for example, or only shortstops -- that would allow us to fill needs that become perceptible. 2/ that when nominating a player, we should also provide a short reason for that nomination: one or two lines, a few stats, links to cards that might exist elsewhere in the online system (mystery card game, 1999, 1986, 20xx). This in order to avoid the fiasco of the choosing of presidential candidates, where anyone can proclaim him or herself a candidate (I couldn't resist that; living abroad as I do, I remain agog by the mediocrity of the presidential candidates that the system forces upon us) 3/that once a year, as a replacement to a "normal" vote, we be allowed to nominate teams to be voted on (10 nominations?): we might have 5 votes, but only 2 teams would get in.

I enjoy reading the passion that we all have for the players that we think are necessary to the success of ATG, and ultimately to the success of each of us. Sports is about comparing what is impossible to compare; it is also about the completion of the sentence that begins "If only...."

Bill

A few suggestions that I would make: 1/that the elections come much closer together -- every two months, the usual practice of 40 nominations, 5 votes, 20 elected. If the votes were to come at an interval such as that, then we might conceive of creating parameters eventually for a particular vote -- only players from 1926 to 1957, for example, or only shortstops -- that would allow us to fill needs that become perceptible. 2/ that when nominating a player, we should also provide a short reason for that nomination: one or two lines, a few stats, links to cards that might exist elsewhere in the online system (mystery card game, 1999, 1986, 20xx). This in order to avoid the fiasco of the choosing of presidential candidates, where anyone can proclaim him or herself a candidate (I couldn't resist that; living abroad as I do, I remain agog by the mediocrity of the presidential candidates that the system forces upon us) 3/that once a year, as a replacement to a "normal" vote, we be allowed to nominate teams to be voted on (10 nominations?): we might have 5 votes, but only 2 teams would get in.

Bill

Bill-- Id say simply that if we added players 6 (every 2 months) or more times per year instead the current approx. 3 then that would accomplish the same task as all 40 and the vote would be more palatable.

Not being able to see the cards for the players we are voting on is a real obfuscation to me- given splits, and the wide variance of card to stats that we see.

I agree with Salty on the "being able to see the cards" thing - good stats don't always add up to a usable card. We have enough player cards that nobody uses.

-The Sheik

Another great idea... being able to see the cards.

I know guys wanted Joe Sewell added, but has anybody noticed how many errors he had that year?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo01.shtml


59


As punishment for choosing him, they should HAVE to use him @ SS...

My assumption is that hes going to be a DH-- great hitting stats-- and who knows-- someone might get brave and try and use him in the field if the price is cheap enough

Unfortunately, since I cant see his card dont know what his ratings will be-- his range for example might be good-- doubt it, but you never know.

A few more votes for Felipe Alou needed! IMO, this card would be a nice addition to the game.

1966. His best year -
31 homers, .327 BA, .537 SLG. Led the NL that year in ABs, Hits, Runs Scored and Total Bases. 1b/LF/CF.
And won't be injured.