Community - Get into the Card Discussions!

I would like to see us try to break this into five separate drafts with 10 cards added for each group. The groups would be Deadball, Pre-War, Post-War, Expansion, and Franchise. The franchise group would concentrate on adding players from underrepresented franchises, and on obviously important players to the franchise guys among us. The other groups would be self-explanatory.

I think our recent additions have been much too heavily skewed toward expansion era players, although there are some obvious cards to add.

I think our recent additions have been much too heavily skewed toward expansion era players, although there are some obvious cards to add.

agree

My Deadball Nominations

Pitchers
Ferdie Schupp 1916 - great 5-day starter
George Bradley 1880 - much better card than the one we have
Ed Walsh 1908 - nearly as good as his 1910 card
Russ Ford 1910 - his best year
Eddie Cicotte 1917 - I hate to promote this scuzzball, but this was by far his best season
Jesse Tannehill 1902 - his best year
Eddie Plank 1915 - best season by far for a HOFer

Hitters
Bill Joyce 1894 - .355/.496/.648 for a LH hitting 3B (in the mad hitting year of course)
Ed Delahanty 1895 - this was his best OPS, and close to his best OPS+, much better than either of the cards we have
Jack Clements 1895 - a 1.058 OPS and 171 OPS+ for a LH hitting (and throwing) catcher, also checks a box for the Phillies
Dan Brouthers 1886 - by fr the best season for a HOFer
Jesse Burkett 1896 - great season for an underappreciated 19th century player
John McGraw 1899 - by far Muggsy's best year
Fred Clarke 1897 - by far the best season for another underappreciated 19th century guy
Cy Seymour 1905 - one of the greatest one year wonder seasons
Elmer Flick 1900 - his OPS here was 141 points higher than the better of his two current cards.
Cap Anson 1884 - I know his 1872 card was nominated, but (a) I don't believe 1872 was relevant to baseball, and (b) Cap hit 21 homers in 1884 and also caught.
George Davis 1897 - Again, I would like to see a different year than the one (1894) he was nominated for (a) he played 3B in 1894, SS in 1897, and is best remembered as a SS, and (b) he led the league in RBI in 1897.
Gavvy Cravath 1913 - his best year in terms of OPS, OPS+, SLG (for a full season) and RBI.
Bill Lange 1895 - DB CF with an OPS of 1.032, one of the best players of the 19th century.

I have intentionally avoided stats from the Players' league and Union association, both of which had very spotty talent. I have also avoided somewhat seasons before 1894, although there are two here. 1894 was the first season of the 60'-6" pitching distance. Finally, I have avoided putting lesser cards for players than the best we already have (with the exception of Walsh). Some of these cards may in fact be not as good as the ones we already have, but I think Druid can cover us there.

I agree with Bill--
the process is months overdue.

Id like to simply add 50 players-- each person SHOULD get to add any one card of their choosing for the first 50 people that vote.

Think its very unfair to let a few people do it by how they want.

One person one card one vote.

I mean look-

one person wants the new Bryce Harper card-- thats his vote, shouldn't be any issue.

If you want to set a minimum ip for starters, relievers and abs for hitters thats fine---

BUT EVERYONE SHOULD GET TO CHOOSE ONE CARD.

"Eddie Cicotte 1917 - I hate to promote this scuzzball, but this was by far his best season"

Screw Comiski. He did it to himself. If he had simply paid Cicotte the bonus he had coming to him, the fix probably wouldn't have happened, and even if it had, without Cicotte in on it Cicotte could probably have beat the Reds single handedly in a 9 game set

C'mon folks--

this is ridiculous-- why are we making a big production outta something so small?

You like Cicotte - vote for that being your card.

IT ain't hard-- dont make it hard--

We can finish this up in a week and get the cards in-- why are we making this long and drawn out--
there is absolutely no need to do it this way.

I didn't even know we were voting. Really I almost don't care which cards we get as long as we just get them!

I didn't even know we were voting. Really I almost don't care which cards we get as long as we just get them!

Thats part of the point--

Lets stop having a huge discussion over a tiny scrap of a thing, its completely unnecessary and is only holding up the entire process.

Now if we are talking about adding a feature then yeah, lets discuss, but when it comes to adding these FEW, I MEAN VERY FEW CARDS LETS STOP MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT AND JUST BE FAIR TO EVERYONE.

I would like to see us try to break this into five separate drafts with 10 cards added for each group. The groups would be Deadball, Pre-War, Post-War, Expansion, and Franchise. The franchise group would concentrate on adding players from underrepresented franchises, and on obviously important players to the franchise guys among us. The other groups would be self-explanatory.

I think our recent additions have been much too heavily skewed toward expansion era players, although there are some obvious cards to add.

I like the suggestion as a good way to peruse the players and follows nicely with the breakout of ERA's and Franchises, but I don't think we should be married to 10 per, especially Deadball. 10 from that era just seems disproportionate. But remember this group isn't deciding on the 50 cards but the larger set that the community will vote on. I think grouping them by ERA and Franchise will be helpful during the vote.