Ross Barnes

Another is that Bernie Hou promised the community that all Hall of Fame players have cards. Problem is guys like O'Rourke, John Ward etc. were actually given cards with worse than their career OPS+, there are more than just a couple of guys with cards under 2M from this era who lack seasons that reflect how good they were. Buck Ewing is considered the greatest catcher pre-Bresnahan, and all we have is a lousy card where he only played 1B, near the end of his career. George Davis was likewise probably the best SS ever before Wagner and we lack a card that reflects this. Rburgh and I listed our top players from that era two or three years ago, but most of them are still in limbo.

There are a few pre-1900 players that I really wanted to see voted on for the last card add.
Buck Ewing was one of them.

10. Buck Ewing 1890 Catcher ABs 352 Avg. .338 OBP. 406 SLG. .545 E Balance, C-2(-3)16, 2b-4e71

Andy, as you know I play on a vintage baseball team (1860 rules, only 33... look em up) and I agree it is a different game than the one played after many of the rules were modified. So, I understand your argument against the cards being included with the ATG set represent a different style and manner of play. The same holds true era to era, so a Lajoie or an Eddie Collins were playing in today's game they would have to change their game entirely to compete. My issue is that they certainly could as they were both great athletes who took advantage of their abilities within the limitations of the era they played in, as did Ross Barnes. Would they have hit for as high and average playing today, maybe, but probably not.


And just a thought, if it was so easy to hit the pitches in the infancy of the game...everyone should've been able to do it and averages should have been even higher.

But Mike, you also know that a fielder could register an out if he caught a hit on the first bounce, so that cut down on hits, not to mention all the errors fielders committed.

There is a difference between downplaying the athletic prowess of a person, and stating that comparing stats from two almost different games should not be counted the same. I’m NOT saying Barnes wasn’t great for his time period.

I’ve watched a little vintage baseball, Mike. Just curious. As a guy who plays it, would compare the pitcher/batter battle more to modern day baseball or slow pitch softball.

More like slow pitch softball. And my argument remains that differing eras cannot be compared and I know you agree with that. But, the game we play here does just that, and I know that's why you put your leagues together by the era. My original beef was with the idea that the talent level of those early guys was less than that of the modern day player and to this I completely disagree.

No, no, I appreciate those old ball players and their skill as much as anyone. Just don’t like melding two different games into one for purposes of ATG.

No, no, I appreciate those old ball players and their skill as much as anyone. Just don’t like melding two different games into one for purposes of ATG.

but this is b/c you like everything separated, yeah?

I don't mean this as any sort of negative thing-- just an observation on what you and some other folks
seem to like to do, no?

Not sure what you mean by separated.

I have created tons of Franchise Leagues (you’re welcome, Strat), some by era, some using the full set, along with many other types as well.

I don’t understand what’s hard about what I said about Barnes. He’s a baseball pioneer. I appreciate his skills. I’m sure he was one of the greatest ball players of his day.

However, his skills DO NOT translate to modern baseball rules. Therefore, I don’t like him being in the set. His card is derived from rules akin to slow pitch softball. I’m not saying he couldn’t have adjusted and played modern baseball rules. I’m saying that, historically, he DIDNT. I’m not mad about it. Bill nominated Barnes, and Bill is one of my best friends in this whole community. He knows he and I disagree about this.

I just prefer the set to have cards that were all derived from playing the same general set of rules. If not, bring in great minor league seasons, or seasons from Cuba or Japan, or seasons from that professional softball league from the 1970s (Anyone remember the Cincinnati Suds, Kentucky Bourbons, Milwaukee Schlitz?)

Not sure what you mean by separated.

--you'd prefer no NeL guys with mlb guys--
you want players separated by eras etc.

Not sure what you mean by separated.

--you'd prefer no NeL guys with mlb guys--
you want players separated by eras etc.

I create some LEAGUES from various eras. I don’t want the set separated by eras. The NeL cards are already in the set as well, but for me, I’d rather have the OPTION to have an Unleashed Set with NeLs, pre-1894 cards, outlier cards, and any other ideas anyone has, and then an MLB set with only MLB cards.

Actually, the Unleashed Set would make you high cap guys happy I think. (Except for possibly the Law of Unintended Consequences: Having too many options for high caps may change the game y’all love as it is now. Draft in High Cap leagues currently means so much to high cap, but with a larger high cap pool, high cap leagues may become like lower cap leagues, where the large pool enables a poor draft to be overcome in waivers.)

The NeL cards are already in the set as well, but for me, I’d rather have the OPTION to have an Unleashed Set with NeLs, pre-1894 cards, outlier cards, and any other ideas anyone has, and then an MLB set with only MLB cards.

So NeL players could only be used in leagues that include pre-1894 players, outliers, minor leaguers, little leaguers and so on? No thank you. NeL players were every bit as Major League as their white counterparts. Relegating them to the "everything else" pile may achieve your goal of strict MLB accuracy, but it makes a mockery of the term "All Time Greats". It's certainly not the best of both worlds you purport it to be.