17.3 Card Add theme

Suggested card add theme...vote to add 25 middle infielders SS/2b...only middle infielders..

This could be nice idea if we added in Cs and 3Bs,
who got zero representation this add.

I'm for adding players that don't have cards.

The 00s are not represented much either: Longoria, Youkilis, Brandon Webb, Matt Kemp, etc that would pump some new blood and be of good value. I also agree there are some vets that don't have cards, but long careers Todd Jones, Torii Hunter, Josh Beckett, Tim Hudson; off the top of my head.

As for teams, some examples are:
2001 A's 102 wins, no cards
2002 Dbacks 98, 3 cards
2002 A's 102, 2 cards - Moneyball team
2004 Cardinals, 105 wins, 3 cards
2004 Red Sox, 98 wins, 2 cards - curse breaking championship team
2005 White Sox 99 wins, 1 card (Konerko)

Suggested card add theme...vote to add 25 middle infielders SS/2b...only middle infielders..

This could be nice idea if we added in Cs and 3Bs,
who got zero representation this add.

While I like this idea, I have some concern that catchers and 3rd basemen may dominate the voting, as they typically have greater power numbers than middle infielders.

Relief pitchers usually don't fare too well in the voting. Should there be a special vote for relief pitchers only, or maybe a special add for relief pitchers and starting pitchers only?

Perhaps a special vote could be held for players with 2 or fewer cards, including those players with 0 cards. Alternatively, perhaps a special vote could be had for players with 0 cards and players that only have cards costing less than $3 million (or some other number).

We've previously had a card add of players without cards and the choices seemed somewhat limited. There are many good players who have one or two cards that are clearly not their best seasons. Most such players are not superstars, and would have little chance of getting added during an open election, but were solid players who could be good values in lower to mid cap leagues. Ken Henderson, a switch hitting 15 season OFer with decent power and OBP who has 1 crummy little used card at less than $1 mil comes immediately to mind:

Ken Henderson, 1970 Giants: .294 17 88 .394 .460 .854, 20 SBs; Played all 3 OF positions as a 2(-2).
Ken Henderson, 1974 White Sox: .292 20 95 .360 .467 .827, 12 SBs; Played in all 162 games. Led AL CFers in PO, 2(-2).

or Larry Bowa, a 16 year switch hitting perennial 1 fielding SS, with just 2 cards, but no cards for his two best seasons:

Larry Bowa, 1975 Phillies: .305 2 38 .334 .377 .711, 24 SBs; Career highs in BA, OBP, SLG & OPS.
Larry Bowa, 1978 Phillies: .294 3 43 .319 .370 .689, 27 SBs; Won 2nd gold glove, 3rd in MVP voting.

or Johnny Mostil, a fleet footed CFer and 10 year veteran, who from 1921 to 1926 was arguably the best defensive CFer in baseball (he is the only CFer in MLB history to record a PO in foul territory), before being slowed by injuries and mental illness, who has just 1 card (1923), which represents his worst offensive season during that period, with his lowest BA and OPS in that span. Any of his other 5 seasons during that time would have been better, but here's his best:

Johnny Mostil, 1926 White Sox: .328 4 41 .415 .467 .882, 41 DO, 15 TR, Led AL w/10 HBP & 35 SBs; Career highs in BA, DO, OBP & OPS. Led AL in CFer PO. 2nd in MVP voting.

or Heinie Zimmerman, a 13 year big leaguer and 3 time RBI champ with just 1 card of under $1 million, who won the Triple Crown in 1912, but wasn't recognized for it until more than 100 years later when there was an RBI recount. To add insult to injury, he finished 6th in MVP voting that season!

Heinie Zimmerman, 1912 Chicago Cubs (3b & 1b): .372 14 104 .418 .571 .989, 41 DO, 14 TR, 23 SBs; Led league and had career highs in hits, DO, BA, HR, RBI, SLG, OPS, OPS+, TB & offensive WAR.

Although I could go on and on, the players cited above are just the tip of the iceberg of dozens of players with 2 or fewer cards that had far better seasons than those seasons for which there are ATG cards. The point is that with so many players with just 1 or 2 inferior cards, it would be unfair to exclude them from getting another card by limiting the voting to players with 0 cards.

If another card add of players with 0 cards is being considered, how about expanding the potential player pool a little to make players with 0-2 cards eligible? The end result could be a new batch of cards with greater usability.

Bernie--

Id hope we should be capable of recognizing that Cs and 3bs might have better offensive numbers than middle infielders--
and still be able to vote in the right folks;
IF thats not the case then there really is no point in the community voting at all.

Bernie--

Id hope we should be capable of recognizing that Cs and 3bs might have better offensive numbers than middle infielders--
and still be able to vote in the right folks;
IF thats not the case then there really is no point in the community voting at all.

the voting process is a funny animal. As the shepherd of this current process I've refrained numerous times from adding my opinion on specific cards being voted on. But a perfect case in point that the 'right folks' don't always get in is our recent add of Cuckoo Christensen. While the card voted in is a good season and Cuckoo could obviously hit he was voted in over many more deserving players (IMO).

I still say if we only had 10 votes each (or 5) , Cuckoo would not have received nearly as many votes

Bernie--

Id hope we should be capable of recognizing that Cs and 3bs might have better offensive numbers than middle infielders--
and still be able to vote in the right folks;
IF thats not the case then there really is no point in the community voting at all.

the voting process is a funny animal. As the shepherd of this current process I've refrained numerous times from adding my opinion on specific cards being voted on. But a perfect case in point that the 'right folks' don't always get in is our recent add of Cuckoo Christensen. While the card voted in is a good season and Cuckoo could obviously hit he was voted in over many more deserving players (IMO).

I'll play devil's advocate here. Christensen did have close to 400 abs in 1926, leading the league in obp. If they had had rookie of the year voting in 1926, he would have won it hands down (and don't forget there are some here who would include all rookies of the year -- remember we also have Joe Charboneau, he of the prodigious rookie season and VERY little else in his three year career. Christensen had a much better rookie season.) He is the reason that the Reds traded away Edd Roush. So what if his mlb career wasn't that long. And besides he was born in San Francisco. All players born in San Francisco should be in ATG in my very chauvinistic opinion...Would you feel better if we called him by his given name, Walter?

I'm always a little bit suspicious of the word "deserving"....

Bill

Cuckoo Christensen was a big success in 1926 in the major leagues. When he slumped in his second year, he left, never to return. However, he had a long minor league career from at least 1921-1933, and afterwards was an umpire who worked college and semi-pro games and sometimes filled in at the Pacific Coast League.
Christensen was nicknamed "seacap" or "cuckoo christy". He liked to get attention by doing things like somersaults before he caught fly balls.
As a rookie in the majors with the Cincinnati Reds in 1926, his batting average of .350 was second in the league and his on-base percentage was first in the league. However, he had no power, hitting no home run in 114 games. His team finished only two games behind the pennant-winning St. Louis Cardinals managed by Rogers Hornsby. In 1927, he slumped to .254, with only 6 extra-base hits in 185 at-bats and washed out of the league.
Before coming to the Reds, Christensen had spent four seasons with the St. Paul Saints, leading the league in runs scored one season and leading the league in stolen bases another season. Teammates included Chuck Dressen and Tom Sheehan. After his major league days he spent years in the American Association and in the Pacific Coast League.

think part of the problem is that there might be a narrative that plays decently about a player and what their cards might actually be.

So and so is deserving because they led the league in triples during x period of time--
Or they are the first player to play for such and such.

while that might be true, their card might really not be useful in most senses unless its extremely under-priced.

Im not making a case for or against Cukoo here, BUT I'd bet if we used 'Walter' instead of 'Cukoo' he would've gotten less votes. That doesn't mean he's unworthy; and even though I poked fun at Placido, his card might be worthy too--
the thing is that when I hear that the reason he got voted in was because he can hit righties and play defense then I too have to wonder where the logic for voting is b/c as Rosie said, some of it is questionable.

there's been too much expressed in this thread to comment cogently on all of it, but, I find it hard to believe that anyone who plays here does not want Cuckoo Christenson

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... cu01.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckoo_Christensen

my deeper point is, isn't wallowing in (enjoying at least) the history of baseball what 'All-Time Greats' sorta means?

I think we just come at this with different goals. I am interested in the PLAYERS, not so much the CARDS. So, my process is simple: find players who are either not represented with an ATG card, or players lacking representative cards for their career. I'd love for every deserving player to be properly represented with a card that somewhat accurately depicts their importance to that specific era of MLB.

I play many different caps and franchise leagues, so, yes, I use MANY cards, some of which may be deemed "unusable" by others. I'm not necessarily looking for GREAT cards. The cards simply represent the players I want to use. So, for example, I don't want Luis Gonzalez's one great CARD to be in the same ballpark as Stan Musial, but because Gonzalez has a great CARD, he's right there close to Musial.

True Statement:
Some play ATG because they love STRAT and want great CARDS with which to play Strat.
Some play ATG because they love BASEBALL and Baseball History and want to play with the PLAYERS from Baseball History.

Neither viewpoint is right, neither viewpoint is wrong. But it does help to explain why many have differences of opinion on what adds to make.