Class of 17.2 ATG Card Add

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.

I read and processed just fine, thanks. The card is innocuous, unlike the Shane Spencer card.

The card was the choice of a tournament finalist and it was in the regular set for that year as djp_77 pointed out. Where is the beef? For whatever reason (unknown to me), that is the card the man wants to see added.

There are already many cards with well under 100 AB in the set and every time we get a full team added there will be a couple more, which I don't see a problem with (unless it is a Gates Brown or Roger Freed scenario).

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.

According to SOM the '86 Maddux was rejected as it was seen as potentially being used to grab Maddux on the cheap during the auto draft and '98 Spencer as it would've been a top salaried card. The Figgins card should be on the low end so obviously doesn't fall into either of those areas of concern.

They did however encourage us to keep a min playing threshold in mind as we nominate and vote cards in. I'm on board with that approach and we've been following that parameter naturally to date anyway.

For the record I also have no issue with the Barnstormers Finalist choosing any card they want, do I wish it was a different more impactful card yes, but they earned the right.

According to SOM the '86 Maddux was rejected as it was seen as potentially being used to grab Maddux on the cheap during the auto draft and '98 Spencer as it would've been a top salaried card. The Figgins card should be on the low end so obviously doesn't fall into either of those areas of concern.

They did however encourage us to keep a min playing threshold in mind as we nominate and vote cards in. I'm on board with that approach and we've been following that parameter naturally to date anyway.

Im sorry (not you Rosie) but the first reason on Maddux does not hold water unless they are gonna eliminate the cheap Duffy card- or how bout the RUTH pithcher card?? just two of many examples.

agree though that we should establish some thresholds.

TBH one of my biggest issues-- things is exactly this-- being told illogical reasons and not having the ability to discuss with them further -- its being talked at and not dialogued with.

Speaking of Roger Freed, folks might remember that Reggie Williams in 1999 got a monster on-base card (based on 1998 season). I don,t remeber his defense, though, but his line here is impressive.

Year Age Tm Lg G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Pos
1998 32 ANA AL 29 45 36 7 13 1 0 1 5 3 3 7 11 .361 .477 .472 .949 147 17 0 1 1 0 0 7/8D9

The guy in our F-to-F league had him and Homer Bush (.380/.421/.465), and went from 8th place to 1st place.

Roger Freed, Reggie Williams and Homer Bush all have great cards, but don't forget about the 1998 Craig Wilson card, which is arguably the best card against LHPs I've ever seen (yes better than '94 Bagwell!) and pretty darn good against RHPs as well. Check it out with the SOM card viewer. Not that it matters a whole lot, but Wilson had 8 more plate appearances than Reggie Williams and a higher batting average, OBP, SLG, OPS and OPS+ than Williams.

G - PA -AB - R - H -2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB - BA - OBP - - SLG - OPS - - OPS+
13 -53 -47 -14 -22 -5 - 0 - 3 - 10 -1 -0 - 3 -.468 .490 - .766 - 1.256 - 225

While you're checking out Craig Wilson on the card viewer, check out 1967 Cisco Carlos. It's one of the best pitching cards I've ever seen, and he would be right up there with Pedro Martinez, Babe Adams, Ferdie Schupp and Guy Hecker among the best 5th day starters:

W - L - ERA - G -GS GF CG SHO SV - IP - - H - R ER HR BB SO HBP - WHIP -- H9 - HR9 - BB9 SO9 - SO/W
2 - 0 -- 0.86 -8 - 7 - 1 - 1 -- 1 -- 0 - 41.2--23--5--4 - 0 - 9 - 0 - 1 -- 0.768 - 5.0 -- 0.0 - 1.9 - 5.8 - 3.00

Lastly, check out the 1979 Oscar Gamble card. Unlike the other cards in this post, it was based on more than a handful of games, as Gamble had 321 plate appearances. Gamble even hit lefties well that year!

G - - PA -- AB - R - H -2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB - BA--OBP -- SLG -- OPS - - OPS+
100--327--274 48--98 10--1--19-64 - 2 - 1 50 .358 .456 - .609 - 1.065 - 188

Unless cards are added on a CONSISTENT basis, there needs to be some sort of filter for cards.

Certain guys wanna add cards to the set for personal/sentimental reasons. I'm sorry but IMHO, this isn't kosher.

If/when cards are added CONSISTENTLY, say every 3 months, it's "fine". If a certain player that you nominate doesn't make it, there's a chance that in 3/6/9 months from now, they will make it in.

But...

This isn't happening.

I wonder what would happen if nobody said anything about when new cards are added? My guess is Strat would do nothing. They would sit back, idly watching.

As far as Figgins goes, as well as the other questionable choice, the manager that nominates him, needs to use him.


I wish there would be a way for Strat to, by default, add a nominated player to the guy that nominated him. It makes no sense to add a player, and then not use him.

My guess is Figgins won't be used a lot. When you draft him, you need to draft an "expensive" backup for him.

As a side note...

What's with Stargell?

In the 70's game, he's a 3(-4) in LF and RF. Plus he plays 1B.

Now he's a 4?

Baseball Reference shows he ONLY played LF in 1973. I'm "fine" with only a LF rating. But I was expecting a 3.

dont think they care too much if anyone says anything-- if they do havent seen much evidence of it.

anyway, also agree with what you are saying on all fronts here.

My recollection is that the mystery games have one defensive rating regardless of which card you get so am assuming that defensive rating is based on all five seasons combined.

Figgins will be on more teams than Vernon Wells.