1999 D-Backs "Extras"

The 1999 100-win AZ season wins in a close one over the 2001 WS team.

We have room for 5 at-large cards. One more reliever needed and 4 position players (2 cheaper cards).

Possible extras:

2001 Byung-Hung Kim RP - 2.94era 1.04whip 4R righty R2 (on '99 team also, but only 27 IP)
2001 Craig Counsell IF - nice utility player from '01 WS team (2b 2 e4, ss 3 e18, 3b 3 e12, 1b 3 e25)
2010 Chris Young CF - 257/341/452 cf 1 (+2) 27hr 28sb (gives AZ a RH option in CF)
2011 Justin Upton RF - 289/369/529 rf 2 (-3) A 1-17 31hr (AZ needs everyday RF option)
2012 Willie Bloomquist UT - 302/325/398 ss 3 e10, 3b 3 e15, lf 3(0) e3 (14 yrs MLB, 3 w/AZ, cheap card)

1999 D-Backs core team:
1 C Damian Miller
2 1B Travis Lee*
3 2B Jay Bell
4 SS Andy Fox* (sub much more useful 1998 cheap card)
5 3B X - Matt Williams (already in - substitute)
6 LF Luis Gonzalez*
7 CF Steve Finley* (sub with better 2000 card - received 27 votes in 19.2 - missed by 1)
8 RF Tony Womack*

9 C Kelly Stinnett
10 RF Bernard Gilkey
11 1B Erubiel Durazo* (use 2001 card instead)
12 SS Hanley Frias#
13 SS X - Tony Batista (no '99 AZ card, traded to TOR - substitute)
14 1B Greg Colbrunn
15 OF David Dellucci* (use 2001 card instead)

1 SP X - Randy Johnson (already in - substitute)
2 SP Omar Daal
3 SP X - Andy Benes (already in - substitute)
4 SP Armando Reynoso
5 SP Brian Anderson
6 SP Todd Stottlemyre

7 CL Matt Mantei
8 RP Greg Swindell*
9 RP Gregg Olson
10 RP X - Darren Holmes (already in - substitute)

I think we should use the 1999 versions of Durazo and Delucci. 1999 was voted in as a team, and those are the years they had. I happen to disagree with not including cards because they are not 'representative' of a career, but I realize this creates strong feelings and I'm happy to put it up to a vote. SOM could create an ATG game where every player has his career averaged out, but they did not.

I think we should use the 1999 versions of Durazo and Delucci. 1999 was voted in as a team, and those are the years they had. I happen to disagree with not including cards because they are not 'representative' of a career, but I realize this creates strong feelings and I'm happy to put it up to a vote. SOM could create an ATG game where every player has his career averaged out, but they did not.

The 1999 versions of those two players are too strong of cards based on limited ABs (155 and 109), just like the Gates Brown card that many would like removed from the set.

We won't be adding any "Roger Freed" cards via the team or individual card adds.

This isn't the "not representative of a career" argument. This is an "unleashed" type of card with HOF numbers based on a limited sample size. We won't be adding "unleashed" type cards.

Note: 2001 was a close second and neither team had 50% of the vote, so we are using a few cards from the 2001 WS team as well.

Thanks,
Bill

It is basically all time great seasons. Already have lots of players with great seasons who never reached them again. We allowed 1894 cards in. I say why not let any card in that has more than 300 at bats.

Also I would only accept under 300 at bats if there was at least a "2" for a injury rating.

It is basically all time great seasons. Already have lots of players with great seasons who never reached them again. We allowed 1894 cards in. I say why not let any card in that has more than 300 at bats.

Just to clarify further - the "not representative of a career" argument is NOT mine. I am fine with a great season as long as it wasn't in a limited sample size (especially under 200 AB).

Thanks,
Bill

It wasn't directed at you. I actually didn't know you had replied when I was typing my message. I get why people don't want them but we have gone too far. I don't mind the great seasons.

It wasn't directed at you. I actually didn't know you had replied when I was typing my message. I get why people don't want them but we have gone too far. I don't mind the great seasons.

Thanks. The point I am trying to make though is there are two very different scenarios.
1) A great season from a limited or otherwise pedestrian career (e.g. 2017 Ozuna)
2) A great card based on a very limited sample size (under 200 AB)

I'm fine with the first scenario. It is whatever the community wants to vote in. The second scenario is what we are looking to avoid. Let's not add more Gates Brown cards to the set.

I like that distinction Bill, and the floor of at bats is what I was asking prior, in these posts. 200 seems quite reasonable to me.


Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:06 pm
Re: D-Backs Team Vote
PostTue Mar 19, 2019 11:27 am

I think there will be opportunities to add to any team that is voted in. It depends on what minimums we want to set. For example, the 1999 DBacks have 12 hitters with over 180 plate appearances, and 8 pitchers over 60 innings. That would give five open slots, using that eligibility bar.

Online
ratioman2

Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:06 pm
Re: D-Backs Team Vote
PostTue Mar 19, 2019 12:26 pm

It's a two edged sword SteveF. For example, in 1999 Greg Colbrunn had a 911 OPS in only 153 PA. Dave Delucci had a 968 OPS in only 123 PA. It wouldn't bother me to add them, but they probably wouldn't be really cheap, and some here really object to those kinds of adds. In other words, you can't win no matter what you do. But we have flexibility

I'm not sure why my name is mentioned. Hell , I'm one of the guys who wants Gates Brown OUT!