Ross Barnes

I have a feeling that a modern high school team would have taken one look at the tough SOBs who played ball in that era and ran away.

Really it makes no sense to compare players of different eras and complain that they weren't good enough.

The entire SoM is based on stats produced by players against SAME ERA PLAYERS!

A minor league guy throwing in the mid 90s right now would likely by the most dominant pitcher in the 50s-
Cant even imagine what a guy who grew up with a batting cage in his backyard, nutrition, roids etc. would do.
So to argue that a guy from 1923 really wasn't that good compared to today doesn't mean too much- unless you want to negate the entire set pre roid era.

I totally agree about players from earlier decades being worthy of respect. It’s just that the rules changed so much from Barnes’ day til even 1894, that I don’t care to see a guy who mastered bunting a ball fair so it would roll foul to be on par with Rogers Hornsby and Joe Morgan. I personally don’t care for any cards pre 1894 to be in THIS set because of the large rules discrepancy. Not putting little Mr. Barnes down personally, just wish he wasn’t in the set, or at least not up there with Hornsby, Collins, and Morgan.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/d05c2ec1

Here's what the sabermetric folks from the American Society of Baseball Research have to say about Ross Barnes. Say what you want about how different the game was back then, this guy put together some amazing seasons and has the second highest lifetime batting average ever. He excelled at a game that is very different than today's version of baseball, which itself has morphed many times over the last century and a half. However, judging him relative to his peers, Barnes was an absolute superstar, probably the dominant player in the first decade of professional baseball. And compared to a whole generation of rule breaking steroid users, he played by the rules. I am thrilled his card is in the set and proud that I was one of strong advocates of including him in ATG. Now if we could just get Spaulding, Mike Tiernan and George Davis...but we have to abide by the arbitrary and capricious dictates of the Commissioner of Card Adds, who in his infinite wisdom has declared a moratorium on adding pre-1900 cards to ATG.

I'd love to see 1875 Al Spalding added to the set.

54-5, 1.59era, 1.036whip, 1hra, led league in wins 5th straight year...

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/d05c2ec1
Now if we could just get Spaulding, Mike Tiernan and George Davis...but we have to abide by the arbitrary and capricious dictates of the Commissioner of Card Adds, who in his infinite wisdom has declared a moratorium on adding pre-1900 cards to ATG.

Never claimed to have infinite wisdom, just many deserving players 1900+. If you and others feel strongly about including these guys ahead of all those others then lets have that discussion.

Rosie,

Maybe you can explain your reasoning for why you are using 1900 as the cutoff year.

Did the game change in some serious way around 1899 that supports this idea?

Various Rules Changes to Baseball in latter half of 19th Century:

1867-1887 Batter could request a High or Low ball from the Pitcher (Ross Barnes, Pete Browning, Tip O'Neil, King Kelly, Dan Brouthers cards all come from this era)

1877 The Fair-Foul hit (bunt) was outlawed. Ross Barnes batting average dropped from .429 in 1876 to .272 in 1877. To those who say he was ill in 1877, he also played full seasons in 1879 and 1881 at ages 29 and 31, batting .266 and .271, respectively.

1880 8 balls constituted a Base on Balls, no wonder pitchers from that era had few walks

1884 6 balls constituted a Base on Balls

1884 The Ban on Overhand Pitching was lifted (Tommy Bond, George Bradley, Guy Hecker, Will White, Larry Corcoran, Candy Cummings, Frank Hankinson, and John F. Coleman cards in ATG all pitched underhanded) And that underhand pitching was a toss, not a fast-pitch softball windup. Until 1884, they were playing slow pitch softball...............

1885-1893 One side of the Bat was allowed to be flat

1887 5 balls constituted a Base on Balls

1887 Walks were counted as HITS---11 hitters batted over .400 that year (Tip O’Neil and Pete Browning in ATG)

1889 4 balls constituted a Base on Balls

1893 Pitching distance increased from 50 feet to 60’6”


I can't and don't speak for Rosie, but these rules changes are reasons why I personally prefer 1893-1894 and ascending cards for Strat.
The game has made minor changes to the rules since then, but for the most part the rules have been fairly consistent.

Again, an Unleashed Set (incorporating these earlier cards, other outlier cards) to go along with an MLB set beginning 1893-1894 would make both sides happy here.

Andy--

Based on what you posted there seems to be nothing that supports any logical reason for a cutoff at 1900.

I’m good with 1893-1894 card and up. However, from what Rosie has said, he’s concentrating on 20th Century adds for the time being, addressing various needs, etc, before adding pre 1900. An 1896 Mike Tiernan, for instance, would be fine. But there are also plenty of deserving 20th Century cards that either give a card to a player that currently has no card, or a card for a player that would be more representative of his career.