Community - Get into the Card Discussions!

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.

Hey Salty - Thanks for chiming in. While this might seem like using a fire hose to blow out a birthday cake there's a bigger picture to consider. Ever since I started playing the add card process was chaotic and always seem to include some cards that really didn't belong based on the first come first serve nature of it. So I suggested a implementing a process where we could have a running list of the next 100 to consider...very similar to what Bill posted earlier in the string...just now we have some momentum.

So if you don't agree that's cool, but let us just see if this actually works. If it does we set ourselves up for quicker, more relevant adds in the future. If not, then well we delayed this round of cards by a few weeks, no biggie.

tks
Rosie

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!

We're not voting just yet, getting the ball rolling on the nominations for that vote.

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.

Hey Salty - Thanks for chiming in. While this might seem like using a fire hose to blow out a birthday cake there's a bigger picture to consider. Ever since I started playing the add card process was chaotic and always seem to include some cards that really didn't belong based on the first come first serve nature of it. So I suggested a implementing a process where we could have a running list of the next 100 to consider...very similar to what Bill posted earlier in the string...just now we have some momentum.

So if you don't agree that's cool, but let us just see if this actually works. If it does we set ourselves up for quicker, more relevant adds in the future. If not, then well we delayed this round of cards by a few weeks, no biggie.

tks
Rosie

Rosie, I appreciate your response--

BUT

What was actually chaotic in the first place WAS THE VOTING PROCESS--
WHAT DOES SOM DO THATS NOT CHAOTIC???
WHY FOCUS ON THIS ONE THING THAT IS MONTHS OVERDUE????

You want to vote about adding an important feature like BULLPEN 3 and have a big community discussion-- have at it.


and lastly, I was perfectly happy with allowing Bill to use the list he compiled and people ALREADY voted on.
IF ONLY SOM WOULD DO THAT!!!

YES ITS A HUGE FIREHOSE.

I guess the biggest thing I'm scratching my head about is whether guys can sign up for like 100 different responsibilities. If first come first serve is what you're trying to avoid, I don't think with just 3 positions on each council, managers, and admittedly great ones like PetroDruid and andycummings should be heading as many councils as they are UNLESS there are vacancies.

Some are already filled out and super plugged in managers like me only saw about this.....now.

Elder statesman are cool though, especially cool ones like I mention above. I just think everyone should be given a chance to join their 1st Council before guys double up. Thanks!

Rburgh's List:

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.

Don't have many problems with the guys rburgh (Craig) nominated. But there are some things I would change.

I would suggest Joyce's 1896 season. He was only a career .293 hitter and by no means a HOF'er but he does have a lifetime OPS+ in the 140's. It is still a very solid year and he plays 30+ games more than in 1894. He still hits .333 with a great secondary average which is really his trademark.

Agree absolutely about the following players and the seasons rburgh cited: Brouthers, Clarke, Burkett, Davis, Flick and Anson and Cravath.

Want to really spotlight Brouthers with his lifetime OPS+ of 170 which puts him in a super elite group way beyond Mays and Aaron for example) and he had quite a stretch of leading the league in Slg and OPS+ in the 1880's. He deserves his best card, just a monster of a player.

Delahanty is a top priority of mine but I prefer a different season that the one rburgh suggests. The year he hit 19 homeruns actually translates into the the second best adjusted hr season ever after Bonds' 2001 season. According to the book, Baseballs All Time Best Sluggers, a sabermatricians dream, he would have hit 63 homeruns which actually ranks higher than McGwire's 70 etc. But I have no faith that SOM would do that card justice in a sabermetic sense. That said, I would nominate Delahanty's 1899 season which is his .410 season and his best OPS+ year. He also is likely to be a 1 in the OF and he has over 600+ PA so he only gets a three game injury.

Disagree with Lange's nomination. A 7 year career with only a 123 ops+ doesn't qualify him as one of the best players on the 19th century IMHO. No interest either in Clements. Not as good as Lange even.

Mcgraw already has a representative+ season. Just don't think he needs another card, especially one that turns him into Mighty Mouse.

Agree with Walsh, Tannehill, Cicotte, and Plank. Don't need another Bradley card IMHO. He was an average pitcher with two great years. Given the era he pitched in I think he is better than well represented in ATG. Russ Ford only played 5 years and doesn't deserve a THIRD card IMHO.

My own nominations: none were flash in the pans and all had solid lifetime OPS+ over 120+.
Most of these guys are either not even in ATG or don't have cards that reflect how good they actually were.

Sherry McGee 1910
Jimmy Sheckard 1900
Silent Mike Tiernan 1896
Tight Pants Titus 1905 (Phillie)
Bobby Veach 1919
Kip Selbach 1900
Ed Roush 1917

The pitchers don't excite me too much from this era, so the four that rburgh and I agree on are enough for me.

[quote="george barnard

I guess it's that added bit of bureaucracy that gets me. I'm not really convinced that our nominations need to be vetted by a committee (again, I play in leagues with most of those guys and they are wonderful people, so it's not the people). Okay, so they get rid of the Roger Freed nominations. Good, but in the end I get the feeling that this might just stifle fun loving debate and has the potential to be become acrimonious if someone's nomination doesn't make the cut (or maybe it's just my having to deal with acrimonious debates all too frequently in my department).[/quote]


This IS EXACTLY RIGHT!

Cue the Dr. Strangelove entrance...

I don't really care how we add new cards. My preferences are based on the leagues I play in, as are each of your opinions as well. I don't care for pre-1894 cards at all. Baseball wasn't "baseball" then.
I don't mind 2015-2016 cards as much, but I'd rather see older player without a card, or players who are poorly represented by the card currently in the set. As I've said before, we come at this from at least two (if not more) trains of thought. Some managers just want the best cards, no matter if it's a 7th Babe Ruth or Greg Maddux. I view the set as a museum of the past, and I play mostly Franchise Leagues, so I want those missing players that we don't have.

Simply put, and not AT ALL an exhaustive list, my focus would be players who are not currently represented (Jermaine Dye, Whitey Lockman, Torii Hunter, Jason Varitek, Bibb Falk, Walt Judnich, Ernie Shore, Carlos Lee, Paul Konerko, Johnny Lindell, Bobby Higginson, Jeremy Bonderman, Rusty Greer, Josh Hamilton, Dean Palmer, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, Mike Lowell, Ray Scarborough, John Lackey, Greg Gagne, David Price, Evan Longoria, Phil Nevin, Ryan Klesko, Steve Finley, Tino Martinez, Jake Peavy, Andy Ashby, Jose Mesa, Derrek Lee, Josh Beckett, Luis Castillo, Dontrelle Willis, Josh Johnson, Brad Penny, Armando Benitez, Jose Vidro, Ryan Zimmerman, Hubie Brooks, Adam Dunn, Livan Hernandez, Javier Vazquez, Chad Cordero, Amaris Ramirez, Alfonso Soriano, Ivan Dejesus, Vic Saier, Carlos Zambrano, Jon Leiber, Rafael Furcal, Brian Jordan, Sam Jethroe, Otis Nixon, Tim Hudson, Mark Wohlers, Craig Kimbrell, Alejandro Pena, Garret Anderson, Howie Kendrick, Chone Figgins, Jered Weaver, Kirk McCaskill, Jim Abbott, Francisco Rodriguez)
and players who are not properly represented (Bill Buckner, Mickey Vernon, Miguel Cabrera, Lance Johnson, Michael Young, Kenny Rogers, Mike Greenwell, Pete Runnels, Garry Templeton, Tim Flannery, Joe Carter, Larry Hisle, Bob Watson, Cliff Floyd, Keith Moreland, Lonnie Smith, Chuck Finley, Mike Easler)

I greatly appreciate and have gratitude for the community members that are volunteering for this. I just REALLY hope SOM delivers as promised. All the volunteers will be putting in plenty of time to present what they think the best cards are, it would be very disappointing, but not unexpected, for SOM to screw it up and take way to long to execute.

Thanks again gents, I hope SOM treats your work with the attention it deserves.

I guess the biggest thing I'm scratching my head about is whether guys can sign up for like 100 different responsibilities. If first come first serve is what you're trying to avoid, I don't think with just 3 positions on each council, managers, and admittedly great ones like PetroDruid and andycummings should be heading as many councils as they are UNLESS there are vacancies.

Some are already filled out and super plugged in managers like me only saw about this.....now.

Elder statesman are cool though, especially cool ones like I mention above. I just think everyone should be given a chance to join their 1st Council before guys double up. Thanks!

Nels - solid suggestion. This has been a function of not knowing how many we would get to jump in.

Attention guys that have signed up already - THANKS! Per the note above please max out to 2 eras/Franchises to start to give others the chance to jump in. Once we clear this holiday weekend we'll reassess. THANKS AGAIN!

News go ahead and post your areas of interest now in prep for a few to open up.
Rosie

I greatly appreciate and have gratitude for the community members that are volunteering for this. I just REALLY hope SOM delivers as promised. All the volunteers will be putting in plenty of time to present what they think the best cards are, it would be very disappointing, but not unexpected, for SOM to screw it up and take way to long to execute.

Thanks again gents, I hope SOM treats your work with the attention it deserves.

Appreciate the support. We will do everything possible to collapse this process.