18.1 proposed direction

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.

I didn't either. Same reason for posting as Andy. Just making an observation...sorry I did...

My last post was also informed by this recent exchange: between Andy and Rosie.

andycummings65 wrote:
Re: 17.4 Card Add direction.
PostFri Jan 19, 2018 11:38 am

Will a little bell go off when we finally have enough 5m RPs?
Rosie2167
Re: 17.4 Card Add direction...
PostFri Jan 19, 2018 12:34 pm

andycummings65 wrote:
Will a little bell go off when we finally have enough 5m RPs?
Ding

Once again from Andy's mouth to God's ear. I don't blame Andy for his post or trying to influence the card selection process. His interests are legitimate, as are everyone else's. My issue is with Rosie taking that feedback and then making arbitrary decisions that are counter to what the community wants. People who play higher caps, and there are more of them than play in Andy's historical leagues, want more high priced relievers, which is why we keep voting for them.

I think this whole process would be a whole lot fairer if there were some Proposed Direction Polls for each add before the actual voting for individual adds takes place. Rosie's whole analysis determining that we will add 4 SS's etc for the current add is fine as a preliminary identification of proposed directions. But the actual final decisions on who will be voted for have become Rosie's decisions, and that is not okay with me.

So, Bruce, do you like Dale Murray being the top priced RP, in the same realm and priced higher than RPs who pitched consistently for many years like Gossage, Rivera, Eckersley, and others?

Good question Andy. I remember when Bernie added Murray and that was presented as a gift to us, which he really believed that it was.

I don't have a problem with Murray or his usage. I may even take him as the first pick in the upcoming BS finals.However, in the interests of historical accuracy, I believe that the best relievers should have the best cards. They are an absolutely integral part of modern baseball. So I'd prefer the best Rivera card be added, for example.

I think that Murray, Gates Brown and Ken Smith - my personal favorite for who shouldn't be in the set - should all be in an "unleashed" version of ATG and that might solve a lot of problems. But getting the community to even agree on something like that would be quite the mountain to climb much less the infinitesimal likelihood that SOM will do anything that doesn't pay immediate financial dividends.

I've petitioned for the Unleashed idea for years. It would give the High Cap leagues a sizeable pool from which to pick, yet give the opportunity for a smaller, more representative pool for those who wanted it. I just wish the player set had the true All-Time Greats at the top of the salary structure.

Agreed.

How about everyone nominates a card and it automatically gets in. There are some people on here that really want a specific card but it will never get through the voting process or to the voting at all. If someone wants the 1972 Ed Brinkman or another person wants Babe Ruth's 1919 Red Sox hitter card then let them. I think that would make people happy.

That is precisely how we got Gates Brown.

Yeah we don't want that. That Gates Brown card shouldn't exist.

200 at bat minimum for hitters. Starters and relievers should have minimums for innings.

Yeah we don't want that. That Gates Brown card shouldn't exist.

200 at bat minimum for hitters. Starters and relievers should have minimums for innings.

Or a "usage" switch we could turn on for leagues, which would sit overused players/pitchers.

Or a switch to set a minimum # of IP/PA's when drafting roster