18.1 proposed direction

Hey all:
As far as the 1980's starting pitchers go, it would be great to have 1981 Dennis Martinez in - think he had the most wins (tied) that season and am thinking he doesn't have a card for that year currently?
Also, 1982 or 1983 Tanana and 1986 tommy john would get my votes as well. I went back and forth on getting these adds since they already have cards but think they would most definitely be used by managers.
I don't care enough though to argue about it, especially since the argument on this board seems to be somewhat cyclical. However Rosie is dealing with strato, it's going much better than when I was pounding them back in the day on improving upon the sporting news site so I would definitely keep building upon that relationship as it seems to be benefiting us all. Thanks and have a great rest of your week,
Tim

Thanks for the input Tim. 1986 for John wasn't great but if you're looking for a Yankee card how about 1979 or 80?
79 - 21-9, 2.96era 17CG, 276IP, 1.205whip, CY-2, MVP-22, LL 0.3 HR/9
80 - 22-9, 3.43era, 16CG, 265IP, 1.229, CY-4, LL 0.4 HR/9

Also the 1968 John CHW has been mentioned as well.

I'm copying this string to the 18.1 Starting pitchers forum.

Rosie...

We did a Test Drive League when the last cards were added.

How about another one with the latest addition?

visick

Rosie...

We did a Test Drive League when the last cards were added.

How about another one with the latest addition?

visick

Sure why not. Let me get the 18.1 polls out and I’ll start that up.

I can’t remember on which thread I opined in favor of using the next team add to follow the Rays and fill out another of the newest expansion teams. It seems to me also that it is inexplicable that the Atlanta Braves of the 90’s don’t have one of those seasons carded in the ATG set. They came up short in the end more often than not, but I think they probably compiled the best W/L record in the majors for the decade. And the Giants have been impressive since 2000 - one of their championship teams would be nice too. Too bad we’re looking at only one new team per year.

In our latest polls, it appears that most of the adds will be exp players. It seems very difficult to get cards added to the pre and post sets, as well as db

In our latest polls, it appears that most of the adds will be exp players. It seems very difficult to get cards added to the pre and post sets, as well as db

Agreed. I think we will need to have an add exclusively for pre-Exp cards to get many added. It seems like once the notice goes up on the front office page to vote, the modern players start surging ahead.

1. add the 6 cards that just missed in 17.4
Chris Davis* 2013 BAL 1B
Matt Mantei 2003 AZ RP
Carlos Beltran 2003 KC CF
Lonnie Smith 1989 BRV LF
Ray Lankford* 1997 STL CF
Rick Wilkins* 1993 CHC C
2. add 4 cards from each position at top; SP, C, 3B, SS
3. leave the 3 remaining slots for ties or near misses
4. the adds must be pre 1990 with at least 6 from each 30 year bucket; 1900-29, 1930-59, 1960-89
tks
Rosie

Keep in mind #4

andycummings65 wrote:
In our latest polls, it appears that most of the adds will be exp players. It seems very difficult to get cards added to the pre and post sets, as well as db

BC15NY wrote:
Agreed. I think we will need to have an add exclusively for pre-Exp cards to get many added. It seems like once the notice goes up on the front office page to vote, the modern players start surging ahead."


So let's see. The community wants to add expansion players as evidenced by the voting in the current polls but a couple of people, representing their own special interests, don't like that trend. No problem! I have an idea. Let's just call the polls 1 data point...they don't mean anything, right?? So their proposed solution: shove pre-expansion players down the community's throat???? Brilliant! Autocracy in action.

I didn't say I didn't like the trend, or that I wanted anything different. I nominated quite a few exp cards, and voted for some. I just said it looks hard to get pre/post cards elected. But go ahead and read whatever you want into it.

My response was more to the post that quoted you, which is why I highlighted it in blue.