Class of 17.2 ATG Card Add

1) We don't have a good Figgins card-- never mind the best one.
its not a good representative season for him either.

2) This is a 65 AB card-
we might as well put in all of the unleashed players if we are doing this--
most of them had more than 65 ABs.


3) This is also the type of card that tends to underperform-- lots of walks, few hits on the card.

I mean-- really of all the things its the 65 ABs that makes it ridiculous.

1) We don't have a good Figgins card-- never mind the best one.
its not a good representative season for him either.

2) This is a 65 AB card-
we might as well put in all of the unleashed players if we are doing this--
most of them had more than 65 ABs.


3) This is also the type of card that tends to underperform-- lots of walks, few hits on the card.

I mean-- really of all the things its the 65 ABs that makes it ridiculous.

I could not agree more!
What's next, Roger Freed?

Roger Freed would get used.

The 4 injury rating acknowledges the 60 at bats. The card will be what? 1 million? People are actually complaining about a low priced card ruining the game like he is Gates Brown.

They earned the right to pick whatever card they want. If Figgins, Youks, and Kipnis had their best years picked they would have not been picked much anyway. I would use Kipnis and Figgins at 80 million or less. You think Figgins best card is gonna get 120+ million use? Nope. As soon as the card hits the set the card would be blasted by people saying its too expensive for low caps and not good enough for big caps. If Figgins best card means that much to everyone then nominate him next time and vote him in. Just pretend its another Cuckoo Christensen card.

People had no problem voting in the Albert Belle 1998 card. Where is his 1994 card? It's far more superior to the 1998 card. We probably shouldn't nominate Figgins anyway. The 2006 Piazza card that will be nominated to help the Padres get a good catcher will get more votes.

Two players who were originally in the top 40, Greg Maddux 1986 and Shane Spencer 1998, were removed because of insufficient playing time. Jeltz and Bautista make the vote instead.

Yes, that was SOMs John Garcia in Garcia's Blog 12/11/14- ATG 8 Poll #2 regarding new card nominations. There does seem to be some precedent from SOM setting minimum playing time parameters for new cards. Perhaps those parameters should be invoked again by SOM.

Two players who were originally in the top 40, Greg Maddux 1986 and Shane Spencer 1998, were removed because of insufficient playing time. Jeltz and Bautista make the vote instead.

Yes, that was SOMs John Garcia in Garcia's Blog 12/11/14- ATG 8 Poll #2 regarding new card nominations. There does seem to be some precedent from SOM setting minimum playing time parameters for new cards. Perhaps those parameters should be invoked again by SOM.

think we are in not quite unanimous, but large agreement that most of us do not want a card with 75PAs to be part of this set.
Don't see it as unreasonable for a card to have a minimum of 300 PAs (roughly a half season) to qualify for inclusion.

And no, a higher injury rating does not equalize this.

Two players who were originally in the top 40, Greg Maddux 1986 and Shane Spencer 1998, were removed because of insufficient playing time. Jeltz and Bautista make the vote instead.

Yes, that was SOMs John Garcia in Garcia's Blog 12/11/14- ATG 8 Poll #2 regarding new card nominations. There does seem to be some precedent from SOM setting minimum playing time parameters for new cards. Perhaps those parameters should be invoked again by SOM.

think we are in not quite unanimous, but large agreement that most of us do not want a card with 75PAs to be part of this set.
Don't see it as unreasonable for a card to have a minimum of 300 PAs (roughly a half season) to qualify for inclusion.

And no, a higher injury rating does not equalize this.

The problem with that is there are already hundreds of cards with less than 300 PA in the set, many of the which get used a bunch. This is a different scenario than a Gates Brown (or a potential Roger Freed card).

While it seems an odd choice, it was earned as a result of competing in a tournament. I'm sure it wasn't advertised that the card or cards you select had to go thru any type of a vetting process.

Any of us are free to play in leagues with custom sets, such as no hitters with less than 300 PA, if we so choose. I think the final say belongs to Strat, but I don't see why they would balk at the Figgins card.

Any of us are free to play in leagues with custom sets, such as no hitters with less than 300 PA, if we so choose. I think the final say belongs to Strat, but I don't see why they would balk at the Figgins card.

Im not being purposely condescending here, but you really didn't read or maybe process the thread you quoted from, specifically BD Ward's quoting Garcia's blog if you don't see why they would/should balk at it.

It was in the regular 2014 set. Strat didn't feel it was so bad that only the "unleashed" set gets it.

I have some feedback from SOM but in meetings all day, will post tonight.