New ATG cards picked by successful Barnstormers managers?

Below is a post that I made in the Barnstormers Tournament forum. Since not everyone reads that forum, I thought that the post should be considered by the greater ATG SOM community. Please respond with your thoughts. - Bernie

To be honest, the potential to get an extra credit is a nice perk, but it's not what motivates me to pay for 6 Barnstormers teams and potentially a 7th & 8th team if I make the Semis and then the Finals. I like the competition and like to see how other managers structure their teams at various caps and differing ballparks. Not only is it an opportunity to learn how to improve my teams, but it helps me assess how I "measure up" compared to other managers.

Instead of a free credit, how about if SOM rewards all of the Semis and Finals qualifiers with the being able to choose 5 player cards to be added to the ATG Series? Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, consider this:

1. I'd bet my last dollar that at least 75% of the Semis and Finals qualifiers would prefer to choose new cards for the ATG series instead of getting a credit;

2. Having the possibility to pick cards for doing well in the tournament would likely increase interest, resulting in more managers participating in the tournament and more revenue for SOM and players hanging in the tournament longer;

3. EVERY MANAGER has a number of players he would like to see added to the ATG series;

4. SOM has stated in numerous posts in the ATG forum that it is committed to the idea of adding new cards, but has always been slow to do so. Since credits for performing well in the tourney deprive SOM of revenue, why not reward successful players with the chance to choose new cards, since SOM plans to add new cards anyway, meaning there would be no additional cost to do so? All that would change is the method of selection, and there is nothing to prevent SOM from later (or sooner) adding additional ATG cards independently of the tourney.

5. Can you imagine the buzz generated by 50 or so managers each having the opportunity to select new cards? The ATG forum would be alive with suggestions and ideas on which cards to choose. Discussion and anticipation is good for business. Just look at all the new leagues resulting from the release of the 2016 season set. Everybody knows that NEW CARDS ARE GOOD FOR BUSINESS and generate more teams.

6. Given the multitude of card sets generated over the years by SOM, chances are that many of the cards would already be in existence and would only need to be priced for ATG. Compare this to the annual card sets based on the most recently completed season, where SOM starts from scratch with every one of about 800 cards and usually gets the cards created, printed and priced for the online game within about 4 months of receipt of the official stats for the most recently completed MLB season. Pricing 250-300 cards already in existence for the ATG game would be a much easier process than creating from scratch the new annual cards based on the most recently completed MLB season.

7. SOM could reserve the right to deny certain new ATG cards based on skewed unrealistic stats resulting from limited AB or IP, such as the oft mentioned Roger Freed 1977 card where he hit .398 with .463 OBP and .627 SLG based on 95 plate appearances. (BTW, when will SOM get rid of that Gates Brown card based on just 9 more plate appearances than Freed had in 1977?)

Awarding the opportunity to select player cards to successful BSer managers instead of credits is a win-win situation for SOM and the SOM online gaming community. It's an idea whose time has come and it should be seriously considered by SOM and the Barnstormers' board.

I think your request is so righteous that it is at the same time too timid. The first four finishers should get to nominate 20, 15, 10 and 5 cards. We keep adding names to the list of cards to be desired, but Lucy can't stuff the chocolates fast enough. And I would give credits to the winner - after all the Barnstormers tour requires a multi season purchase commitment.

I don't know if the proposal is "righteous", but I don't agree that it's too timid, though we seem to be mostly on the same page. While I'm happy to get ANY new cards added to the ATG set (not that I'm sitting here waiting for a few crumbs to be thrown to us by SOM, as for whatever reason, it always seems to underdeliver on its promise to add new cards to the ATG series, to the vast disappointment of a very patient and loyal online gaming community). Under your proposal, we get 50 new cards based on the decisions of the top 4 BSer finishers, presumably the 4 playoff teams in the BSer Finals league. Under my proposal, with each of the 57 Semis and Finals qualifiers getting 5 new card picks, we get 285 new cards and broader community participation. Of course, I would have no problem letting the top 4 finishers pick more cards between them, as long as the rest of the Semis and Finals qualifiers got to each pick 5 cards. The more cards added the merrier!

This whole card idea came about as a result of SOM allegedly balking at awarding 1 credit each to an expanded BSers Semis field (amounting to 12 extra credits compared to last year). As stated in my initial post, since SOM has pledged its commitment numerous times to adding more cards to the ATG series, meaning that it supposedly will add more cards anyway, why not make it a win-win situation and let the successful BSers managers choose the cards to be added instead of settling for more credits that SOM doesn't want to give anyway?

Think about it: The 57 BSer managers who make the Finals and the newly expanded Semis, assuming that credits were bought when on sale, would have spent as much as nearly $100.00 EACH just to participate in the 6 qualifying leagues and the Semis and/or Finals. That's $5,700.00 in SOM's pocket for managers having the "privilege" of playing in the BSer tourney, not to mention the $85.00 or so that about 100 managers who fail to make the Semis pay to participate in 6 rounds of the tourney. The end result is about $14,000.00 extra in SOM's pocket from the BSers tourney. Even if one reduces the $14,000.00 by 25% (3 credits awarded for each league of 12), that's still a net of $10,500.00 for SOM from BSers, not counting operating expenses, which are mostly fixed. While SOM won't get rich off of the BSers tourney, SOM's costs are fixed and the tourney helps pay its fixed costs.

We have to start somewhere. I refuse to be a party to the mindset that it's a waste of time to even suggest such a proposal to SOM, as it is a reasonable proposal. It would be nice to see SOM work with the online gaming community on this idea, which to me at least, is so much of a win-win situation as to be a no brainer.

The ball is in SOM's court.

Oh I thought you meant 5 in total, so I just wanted to build on that. I support you, and well done.

Interesting concept. My two cents worth is that it's a great idea ONLY if it is for additional cards above and beyond the 125 per year that the broader community gets to vote on as it stands now.

I'd really like to see Strat set a (reasonable) price for adding an entire team to the set. I'd pony up for a few.

Bill

Bill, I agree, but I'm compelled to ask, when was the last year, if ever, that SOM added 125 new cards to the ATG series? If it has ever been done, how many years have there been when SOM added 125 new cards to the ATG series? All I know is that the 285 new ATG cards my proposal would give us is greater than the 125 cards we haven't been getting.

However, the language of my proposal addresses your concern, where in paragraph 4 I wrote :

......."there is nothing to prevent SOM from later (or sooner) adding additional ATG cards independently of the tourney."

Bill, I agree, but I'm compelled to ask, when was the last year, if ever that SOM added 125 new cards to the ATG series? If it has ever been done, how many years have there been when SOM added 125 new cards to the ATG series? All I know is that the 285 new ATG cards my proposal would give us is greater than the 125 cards we haven't been getting.

However, the language of my proposal addresses your concern, where in paragraph 4 I wrote :

......."there is nothing to prevent SOM from later (or sooner) adding additional ATG cards independently of the tourney."

That is a bit disingenuous. SOM has added 100 cards in less than a year through the various polls that have been conducted here. The list, the first 75:

Harper Bryce 2015 OF EXP/NAT 11.53
Trout Mike 2013 CF ANG 10.51
Greinke Zack 2015 SP DOD 10.04
Arrieta Jake 2015 SP CHC 9.85
Foxx Jimmie 1938 1B RSX 9.82
Goldschmidt Paul 2015 1B AZ 9.8
Lezcano Sixto 1979 RF MIL 9.74
Cabrera Miguel 2013 3B DET 9.7
Thome Jim 2002 1B CLV 9.69
Hamilton Josh 2010 OF TEX 9.58
Johnson Randy 1995 SP SEA 9.41
Bottomley Jim 1928 1B STL 8.8
Delahanty Ed 1899 OF PHI 8.79
McCutchen Andrew 2012 CF PIT 8.75
Williams Ken 1922 OF BAL 8.65
McDowell Sam 1965 SP CLV 8.47
Brouthers Dan 1886 1B DET 8.42
Hunter Catfish 1975 SP NYY 8.37
Colavito Rocky 1958 RF 1B CLV 8.32
Scherzer Max 2013 SP DET 8.31
Votto Joey 2010 1B CIN 8.28
Shantz Bobby 1952 SP A's 8.05
Kiner Ralph 1951 LF 1B PIT 7.98
Horlen Joe 1964 SP CHW 7.95
Holiday Matt 2007 LF COL 7.87
Kent Jeff 2000 2B GIA 7.82
Schoendienst Red 1953 2B STL 7.59
Hernandez Felix 2014 SP SEA 7.53
Braun Ryan 2011 LF MIL 7.48
Ramirez Hanley 2009 SS FLA 7.38
Donaldson Josh 2015 3B TOR 7.38
Adcock Joe 1956 1B BRV 7.37
Vernon Mickey 1946 1B WSH/MIN 7.34
Dye Jermaine 2000 RF KCR 7.21
Tejada Miguel 2002 SS A's 7.18
Murphy Dale 1983 CF BRV 7.15
Fernandez Jose 2013 SP FLA 7.1
Johnson Howard 1989 3B NYM 7.03
Sale Chris 2014 SP CHW 7
Nevin Phil 2001 3B SDP 6.97
Price David 2012 SP TB 6.92
Parker Dave 1978 RF PIT 6.79
Richard JR 1980 SP HOU 6.67
Berkman Lance 2006 OF 1B HOU 6.6
Carpenter Chris 2005 SP STL 6.55
Anderson Garrett 2003 LF ANG 6.48
Finley Steve 1996 CF SDP 6.37
Mussina Mike 1995 SP BAL 6.29
Cravath Gavvy 1913 OF PHI 6.27
Joost Eddie 1949 SS A's 6.21
Hisle Larry 1978 OF MIL 5.91
Utley Chase 2008 2B PHI 5.86
Hodapp Johnny 1930 2B CLV 5.81
Bichette Dante 1995 OF COL 5.71
Leiter Al 1998 SP NYM 5.63
Tolan Bobby 1970 CF CIN 5.51
Castilla Vinny 1998 3B COL 5.42
McGriff Fred 1992 1B SDP 5.31
Williams Cy 1924 CF PHI 5.28
Pettitte Andy 1997 SP NYY 5.09
Runnels Pete 1958 1B 2B RSX 5
Lidge Brad 2004 RP HOU 4.81
Munson Thurman 1977 C NYY 4.75
Stennett Rennie 1977 2B PIT 4.73
Soriano Alfonso 2006 LF EXP/NAT 4.51
Fothergill Bob 'Fats' 1927 LF DET 4.48
Varitek Jason 2004 C RSX 4.45
Morris Jack 1986 SP DET 4.17
Eichhorn Mark 1986 RP TOR 4.15
Konerko Paul 2005 1B CHW 3.92
Mesa Jose 1995 RP CLV 3.65
Buckner Bill 1980 1B CHC 3.37
Fingers Rollie 1972 RP A's 3.32
Carter Joe 1991 1B TOR 3.1
Hunt Ron 1971 2B EXPOS 2.52

And the recent 25:

Flick, Elmer 1900 8,830,000
Ott, Mel 1938 7,770,000
Piazza, Mike 2000 7,160,000
Falk, Bibb 1926 7,130,000
Longoria, Evan 2009 6,690,000
Kuenn, Harvey 1959 6,610,000
Castillo, Luis 2003 5,360,000
Burns, George 1926 5,090,000
Sauer, Hank 1952 4,280,000
Boone, Ray 1956 4,200,000
Causey, Wayne 1964 1,620,000
Green, Pumpsie 1960 750,000
Clarke, Horace 1966 710,000
Ford, Russ 1910 10,380,000
Schupp, Ferdie 1916 10,130,000
Ellsworth, Dick 1963 8,950,000
Hahn, Noodles 1902 8,470,000
Pascual, Camilo 1959 8,270,000
Peavy, Jake 2007 7,930,000
Bumgarner, Madison 2013 7,670,000
Willis, Dontrelle 2005 6,080,000
Farrell, Turk 1963 5,010,000
Abernathy, Ted 1967 4,740,000
Hamilton, Steve 1963 1,600,000
Roebuck, Ed 1957 1,400,000

Should there have been more earlier? Of course, but they are on board now and have been forthcoming about the adds. Should we implement your ideas? Of course. I've been arguing for that for years.

Bill

I understand what you are aiming at. But for those that do not have the time to commit to 6 to 8 teams for the barnstormers should not be locked out from having an equal say in what new cards are added. This proposal would essentially create two classes of ATG participants with those who do not participate in barnstormers being a lower second class ATG citizen. All ATG participants should have an equal say in new cards and all issues.

I wouldn't have a problem with Bernie's proposal if the huge luck element regarding playoff results in the Barnstormer's was reduced. The present system of awarding 20 extra points for a league championship, when the playoffs are basically a crap shoot, devalues the skill required in compiling a record over 162 games vs. at most 14 games. Just adding the total playoffs wins for a team to the regular season totals, while eliminating the "bonuses" would go a long way toward reducing the random luck element. You win a league, by definition, you are adding 8 points to your total and at least 4 points if you make the finals. That should be sufficient. Then the top Barnstormer managers would deserve to be rewarded by getting to choose card additions. It would probably get me to play the tournament again.

I understand what you are aiming at. But for those that do not have the time to commit to 6 to 8 teams for the barnstormers should not be locked out from having an equal say in what new cards are added. This proposal would essentially create two classes of ATG participants with those who do not participate in barnstormers being a lower second class ATG citizen. All ATG participants should have an equal say in new cards and all issues.

Valen: You have raised a valid concern, one which I considered before posting the suggestion here. The idea originated to suggest to SOM and Barnstormers officials a viable win-win alternative to offering game credits to successful BSer participants when SOM balked at providing the 12 additional credits resulting from an expanded BSer Semis. The goal is to get more players added to the ATG series, which is overwhelmingly favored by the ATG playing community. There is no intent to lock anyone out of the selection process, but I'm aware that it could be viewed as one of the unintended consequences of adding such a perk to the BSers tourney. As I stated in a previous post, the language of my proposal partially addresses your concern, where in paragraph 4 I wrote:

......."there is nothing to prevent SOM from later (or sooner) adding additional ATG cards independently of the tourney." In other words, the ball is in SOM's court to continue with its planned ATG new card selection process in addition to the new ATG cards added as a result of the BSers tourney. The proposal is intended as a perk to successful BSer managers and is intended to supplement the ATG new card selection process, not to replace it.

Every year I'm on the fence as to whether I will participate in the tourney. It takes time and money to be in the tourney, and the competition is tougher than the average ATG league. One year I quit the tourney after qualifying for the Semis, walking away from my hard earned chance to be the champ, to protest something I didn't like. I suspect that there are many other fence sitters, most, but not all, of whom eventually join the tourney. Offering the added incentive of possibly selecting 5 ATG players would increase participation not only among fence sitters, but would likely expand the base of ATG players and tourney participants. That's good for managers and good for SOM, a true win-win situation.

I hope that you are not saying that you would rather have no players added to the ATG series rather than to have them added by a selection process you don't like, one which you feel deprives you and other members of the community from participating in the the selection process. But if you are saying such, please consider the following:

1. Barnstormers participants are in some ways like professional athletes, being that there are a few superstars, some all-stars, wiley veterans, fringe players and prospects. Not unlike professional athletes, the performance of tourney players can vary widely from year to year, from great to good to average to mediocre. In other words, not everyone is able to earn the right to advance in the tournament by making the Semis. I suspect that most BSer participants would have no problem with the concept of not making the Semis, but letting those who do each select 5 new ATG players.

2. There are those who would argue that the selection process for new ATG players has always been unduly influenced by the early participants, big spenders and squeaky wheels of the ATG community. If such is true, while opinions may differ as to who those people may be, they arguably and historically had the ear of SOM big wigs and helped shape the ATG player pool into what it is today, while the average player had little, if any input. If such is true, does that make it right? No, of course not. But it arguably demonstrates that there has been limited and illusory input, at best, from the community as whole into the player selection process.

3. Take a good look at the ATG new card selection process of the last few years. Either SOM nominates a few players, or SOM gives those who happen to read the forum first that day the opportunity to nominate a player until a certain number of nominations, capped by SOM, is reached. Also, SOM may nominate a few teams, or designate some community members to compile the nominations and then we vote, in the case of individual players, depending on the number of new player candidates, selecting anywhere from 5-10 players to be added on our "ballot". There really hasn't been any singular or consistent method of adding new ATG players. Voting usually lasts in the range of a couple of weeks, and then a predetermined number of players, set by SOM, perhaps about the top half of vote getters, have cards added to the ATG set, which may take anywhere from several weeks to several months to accomplish. While some people may argue that the whole ATG new card selection process is intentionally slow from start to finish to reduce the burden on SOM to produce new cards while at the same time giving the appearance of addressing the desires of the community, that's besides the point. The question is, how many of the players that an individual would like to see added to the ATG series does he really get? The answer is no more than a handful, if that.

4. Valen, there is nothing to prevent you from posting in the forum your list of proposed new ATG cards. As an experienced and respected member of the ATG community, if successful BSer managers get to choose 5 new cards, your suggestions would get serious consideration. My gut feeling is that with 285 new cards, you would get a far higher percentage and far greater number of cards on your list than under any of the previous selection processes.

The goal, of course, is to increase the number of cards added to the ATG series and to get the cards most desired by the community. I hope the focus remains on the end result, which would be far better for the community as a whole, rather than on the selection process.

At the end of the day, what is preferable, more new cards with more of the desired players, or greater input, with fewer cards and fewer desired players, offered to throw a few crumbs at the community? I'll take the better end result every time.