Ross Barnes

Let's take the argument advanced for not having players prior to 1893 added to the pool to its' logical conclusion. As I read it, the crux of Rosie's argument is that prior to the rules changes of 1893- presumably the moving back of the pitcher's mound about 10 feet being the key change - there is a qualitative difference between baseball played before the rule changes and baseball after the changes were implemented, such that baseball functionally became a different game after the rule changes and that this fundamental difference warrants the exclusion of the pre 1893 cards from consideration for at least the near future.

Okay, so baseball also became a functionally different game after the spitball and other "freak deliveries" were outlawed in 1917 and again when Babe Ruth singlehandedly ended the deadball era and ushered in a wholly different type of baseball. Can one realistically compare the type of baseball played during the deadball era to anything that came after it? The rise to prominence of the home run obviated the prevailing strategic approach to baseball, forever rendering it obsolete.

Then of course we have the dh introduced in 1973. So extending Rosie's logic to its logical conclusion, the NL and AL post dh are playing very different games of baseball. Therefore, to ensure that we have a homogenous set where all the included players essentially played the same game, we should restrict any future additions to ATG, to cards from 1920-1972 as before and after those dates, the game was very different, not to mention how steroids changed the game even more radically starting in the 90's.

I'm not one to bang my head against a brick wall interminably. Thus, going forward, I will no longer participate in any way with what I view as an arbitrary and capricious selection process to add cards to ATG.

Let's take the argument advanced for not having players prior to 1893 added to the pool to its' logical conclusion. As I read it, the crux of Rosie's argument is that prior to the rules changes of 1893- presumably the moving back of the pitcher's mound about 10 feet being the key change - there is a qualitative difference between baseball played before the rule changes and baseball after the changes were implemented, such that baseball functionally became a different game after the rule changes and that this fundamental difference warrants the exclusion of the pre 1893 cards from consideration for at least the near future.

Okay, so baseball also became a functionally different game after the spitball and other "freak deliveries" were outlawed in 1917 and again when Babe Ruth singlehandedly ended the deadball era and ushered in a wholly different type of baseball. Can one realistically compare the type of baseball played during the deadball era to anything that came after it? The rise to prominence of the home run obviated the prevailing strategic approach to baseball, forever rendering it obsolete.

Then of course we have the dh introduced in 1973. So extending Rosie's logic to its logical conclusion, the NL and AL post dh are playing very different games of baseball. Therefore, to ensure that we have a homogenous set where all the included players essentially played the same game, we should restrict any future additions to ATG, to cards from 1920-1972 as before and after those dates, the game was very different, not to mention how steroids changed the game even more radically starting in the 90's.

I'm not one to bang my head against a brick wall interminably. Thus, going forward, I will no longer participate in any way with what I view as an arbitrary and capricious selection process to add cards to ATG.

You forgot artificial turf.

Let's take the argument advanced for not having players prior to 1893 added to the pool to its' logical conclusion. As I read it, the crux of Rosie's argument is that prior to the rules changes of 1893- presumably the moving back of the pitcher's mound about 10 feet being the key change - there is a qualitative difference between baseball played before the rule changes and baseball after the changes were implemented, such that baseball functionally became a different game after the rule changes and that this fundamental difference warrants the exclusion of the pre 1893 cards from consideration for at least the near future.

Okay, so baseball also became a functionally different game after the spitball and other "freak deliveries" were outlawed in 1917 and again when Babe Ruth singlehandedly ended the deadball era and ushered in a wholly different type of baseball. Can one realistically compare the type of baseball played during the deadball era to anything that came after it? The rise to prominence of the home run obviated the prevailing strategic approach to baseball, forever rendering it obsolete.

Then of course we have the dh introduced in 1973. So extending Rosie's logic to its logical conclusion, the NL and AL post dh are playing very different games of baseball. Therefore, to ensure that we have a homogenous set where all the included players essentially played the same game, we should restrict any future additions to ATG, to cards from 1920-1972 as before and after those dates, the game was very different, not to mention how steroids changed the game even more radically starting in the 90's.

I'm not one to bang my head against a brick wall interminably. Thus, going forward, I will no longer participate in any way with what I view as an arbitrary and capricious selection process to add cards to ATG.

Ok, your knowledge and wisdom will be missed.

I'm with Druid on this one...using 'different' game as an argument is so full of holes it should only be advanced on Sundays...the game is baseball and baseball evolves...ATG stands for 'all time greats' at baseball.
In my mind it is the greatest at baseball (in whatever era they performed greatly) that should be represented in the card set. Whether it is a great team, a great season, or a great career. Instead of filling holes methinks we should be ditching the detritus...the average or less cards that overpopulate the set.
A card belongs if an aspect can be identified as 'great'.

I'm with Druid on this one...using 'different' game as an argument is so full of holes it should only be advanced on Sundays...the game is baseball and baseball evolves...ATG stands for 'all time greats' at baseball.
In my mind it is the greatest at baseball (in whatever era they performed greatly) that should be represented in the card set. Whether it is a great team, a great season, or a great career. Instead of filling holes methinks we should be ditching the detritus...the average or less cards that overpopulate the set.
A card belongs if an aspect can be identified as 'great'.

I completely disagree with the idea of removing cards that aren't "great". They are vital to the game at all caps from 140m down and to the set from a baseball history standpoint.

I think it would be great if we could have one add in 2018 where we voted in about 10 cards from pre-1900 seasons. I still like the idea of adding Al Spalding to the set. For me it's about baseball history and a chance to use players from the birth of the game to present day MLB.

I'm with Druid on this one...using 'different' game as an argument is so full of holes it should only be advanced on Sundays...the game is baseball and baseball evolves...ATG stands for 'all time greats' at baseball.
In my mind it is the greatest at baseball (in whatever era they performed greatly) that should be represented in the card set. Whether it is a great team, a great season, or a great career. Instead of filling holes methinks we should be ditching the detritus...the average or less cards that overpopulate the set.
A card belongs if an aspect can be identified as 'great'.

Rockers thanks for chiming in. I like the fact that here you are, been a member for a while but rarely post. Yet you feel this is important enough to share your opinion. nice. I've encouraged Salty to see what the community opinion is on this topic so stay tuned as more of your input might be solicited.

Keep in mind though that without the average and average minus cards in the set playing any format would be virtually impossible.

Keep in mind though that without the average and average minus cards in the set playing any format would be virtually impossible.[/quote]

If a 'great' team is included, then a lot of marginal players are included. The Big Red Machine was not full of great players...the Reggie A's had a lot of plebes...

The point is to be included there has to be an aspect of the card that is 'great'. Even it is 'only' being a member of a great team.

I'm pretty sure David Ross earned his ring last year.

umm,
just to be clear, I wasn't planning on creating a poll.

I'm already asserting that most folks want the earlier cards in the set; but was trying to be fair in allowing for other people's opinions.

So, the evolution of some strategies and behaviors in baseball under a common set of rules, like Babe Ruth and the Home run, the DH, the Shift, or specialized relief pitching, is the same thing as a batter/pitcher “confrontation” beginning with an underhand lob under a completely different set of rules?
I think you can say “I don’t care, I want them anyway.” But you can’t say it’s the same.

It’s no different than Strat deciding to use 19th century Rugby players in their new Online Strat Football.

Put me with Andy. It was a completely different game pre 1893. Yes the game has changed a great deal over the years but the basic rules of baseball have remained unchanged in all of that time. Those pioneers of the game deserve to be in the hall of fame and to be honored as well. I also question how well they kept stats in that era. I would love nothing more than to see Ross Barnes, Candy Cummings, Honus Wagner,Joe Jackson, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige play together on a corn field in Iowa but for strat-o-matic it is a game based purely on stats rather than dreams. Some players are more legend than anything quantifiable. That is just my worthless two cents. I love strat and will play it regardless of what is decided on this matter.