Ross Barnes

AllTime Greats began as a collection of AllTime Great MLB TEAMS. I personally would never want minor league cards, outlier cards, etc in any set. That would be up to the community if there was an Unleashed Set.

I use the NeL cards all the time in regular leagues. I think it’s grossly unfair they didn’t have the opportunity to play in the majors. My point, which keeps flying over peoples heads: I’m not against Ross Barnes or NeLs. They were all great ball players in whatever context they played. But I wouldn’t mind a set option to play only MLB cards that played with generally the same rules (since 1894).

yeah-
andy I understood your explanation on the NeL guys already, wasn't trying to rehash that as a racism issue.

Its more that you like to have things sorted this way, which again is fine.

As far as the high caps go, the only reason to focus on the cards is because that's all we've gotten the past few years.

Id much prefer to see some game improvements that can help us implement more strategies, but what are the chances that will ever happen?

I rebranded our Deadball ERA forum to 1893-1899 so those that are interested can continue that discussion over there.

tks
Rosie

I rebranded our Deadball ERA forum to 1893-1899 so those that are interested can continue that discussion over there.

tks
Rosie

Rosie-

SO far only one person has voiced an opinion that they are opposed to pre 1893 cards.

My point in talking about a 1900 cutoff was that its a random year for a cutoff.
while there is an actual difference after 1893 I'm not seeing many folks bothered by the earlier cards either,
especially since we already have earlier ones.

Rosie-

SO far only one person has voiced an opinion that they are opposed to pre 1893 cards.

Make that two. Perhaps we should vote on that, we vote on everything else.

Make that two. Perhaps we should vote on that, we vote on everything else.

While I don't think voting on everything is always the answer, maybe its not a bad idea here?

Fair enough on 1900 being random, 1893 is not. I will not support voting any pre 1893 cards into the ATG set until we've exhausted getting other cards in.

But by all means feel free to drum up support, you have the right to do so and you have just as much ability to start a poll as I do.

Fair enough on 1900 being random, 1893 is not. I will not support voting any pre 1893 cards into the ATG set until we've exhausted getting other cards in.

But by all means feel free to drum up support, you have the right to do so and you have just as much ability to start a poll as I do.

why would anyone bother drumming up support for something you won't support?

its really not my top priority, am simply pointing out that this statement lacks logic.

Fair enough on 1900 being random, 1893 is not. I will not support voting any pre 1893 cards into the ATG set until we've exhausted getting other cards in.

But by all means feel free to drum up support, you have the right to do so and you have just as much ability to start a poll as I do.

why would anyone bother drumming up support for something you won't support?

its really not my top priority, am simply pointing out that this statement lacks logic.

Look, I have my opinions but I'm not an ass, or at least I don't think so. I try to listen to folks and incorporate their ideas and suggestions. Yes I do believe this process needs guidance and ultimately someone has to make some decisions. I felt strongly that focusing on all the holes we have in the set before pre1900 players was the best direction, but you and others have expressed your thoughts and it does make sense to open up a bit. But I do still feel that the pre 1893 players just played a different version of the game, different enough to be put on the back burner for the time being. But if its important to you and many others that that position is reconsidered than show me and yourself that that is indeed the case.

What lacked logic was the process for adding cards before we started this process.

Okay-
Accepted.