WHY limit the pre 1900 players to 2nd tier?

When someone starts name-calling (i.e., again with the "boomer" stuff), they've already lost the argument.

Assuming, Mr. Brown, that you got what you wanted with AT9, why are you still complaining?

Comparing to the "roids era" isn't the same at least the rules (other than the spitball) were the same.

Damn, The Last Droid and others make the prices for the set, but it is secretive, no wonder he is afraid to play any other set where he doesn't have a HUGE advantage, and he still can't beat me...

As far as I know, TLD was not involved in the pricing. I would also suggest that there is no real advantage to being involved. In fact, sharing your thoughts on someone who is underpriced actually takes a bargain away from you.

Not sure what kind of information would be useful to know about the pricing. Everyone involved has their way of rating players. Most I'm sure based on one Sabremetric or another (or multiple). It's not rocket science (it's baseball science ). Figure how many runs a card will generate and set a price.

comparisons of any era are merely points of view --
you say roids is the same rules I say exactly the opposite- those that partook didn't play by the rules-
so could just as easily make the case that they should be excluded.

Also again--
not the actual point- these arguments were hashed out and voted on already.

Joe The Jet-
can you address the point on why we should nullify or relegate to a secondary position cards that the entire community had an opportunity to vote on already?

comparisons of any era are merely points of view --
you say roids is the same rules I say exactly the opposite- those that partook didn't play by the rules-
so could just as easily make the case that they should be excluded.

Also again--
not the actual point- these arguments were hashed out and voted on already.

Joe The Jet-
can you address the point on why we should nullify or relegate to a secondary position cards that the entire community had an opportunity to vote on already?

I assume because the rules where so different that "modern era of baseball" in considered to have started in either 1901 or 1900.

" However, 1900 is now considered the beginning of the modern era in Major League Baseball, and today’s records are based on player statistics since that time." = https://www.history.com/news/what-is-ba ... modern-era "Over the course of the sport’s first few decades, however, many of the games’ rules and regulations were in flux, including the distance of the pitcher’s mound from home plate. But by 1900 most of these rules had been codified, and with the founding of the American League and the playing of the first World Series a few years later, baseball became the national pastime we know today."

That's why. I think It's logical even if that's not the decision you would have made. I respect that you think different and I can totally see your point. I think they made a good decision, but that's just me.

comparisons of any era are merely points of view --
you say roids is the same rules I say exactly the opposite- those that partook didn't play by the rules-
so could just as easily make the case that they should be excluded.

Also again--
not the actual point- these arguments were hashed out and voted on already.

Joe The Jet-
can you address the point on why we should nullify or relegate to a secondary position cards that the entire community had an opportunity to vote on already?

I assume because the rules where so different that "modern era of baseball" in considered to have started in either 1901 or 1900.

" However, 1900 is now considered the beginning of the modern era in Major League Baseball, and today’s records are based on player statistics since that time." = https://www.history.com/news/what-is-ba ... modern-era "Over the course of the sport’s first few decades, however, many of the games’ rules and regulations were in flux, including the distance of the pitcher’s mound from home plate. But by 1900 most of these rules had been codified, and with the founding of the American League and the playing of the first World Series a few years later, baseball became the national pastime we know today."

That's why. I think It's logical even if that's not the decision you would have made. I respect that you think different and I can totally see your point. I think they made a good decision, but that's just me.

Really Cy Young’s pre 1900 wins don’t count in the MLB record book? They do on the record site of MLB .COM All time record in the National league for Lifetime Batting Average? This is the “origin” of modern era, but records of the National League are still up on the MLB website including players from the 1800’s.

comparisons of any era are merely points of view --
you say roids is the same rules I say exactly the opposite- those that partook didn't play by the rules-
so could just as easily make the case that they should be excluded.

Also again--
not the actual point- these arguments were hashed out and voted on already.

Joe The Jet-
can you address the point on why we should nullify or relegate to a secondary position cards that the entire community had an opportunity to vote on already?

I assume because the rules where so different that "modern era of baseball" in considered to have started in either 1901 or 1900.

" However, 1900 is now considered the beginning of the modern era in Major League Baseball, and today’s records are based on player statistics since that time." = https://www.history.com/news/what-is-ba ... modern-era "Over the course of the sport’s first few decades, however, many of the games’ rules and regulations were in flux, including the distance of the pitcher’s mound from home plate. But by 1900 most of these rules had been codified, and with the founding of the American League and the playing of the first World Series a few years later, baseball became the national pastime we know today."

That's why. I think It's logical even if that's not the decision you would have made. I respect that you think different and I can totally see your point. I think they made a good decision, but that's just me.

okay - so looking strictly at the rules of the era is a point of view--

My question was specifically about nullifying, relegating to secondary something the community voted on.

Sure, as I said, you have a point. How many people out of the entire community actually voted?

Anyway, I think you understand me and I understand you. I think it was a judgement call and, personally, not an unreasonable decision. I can get why you would have made a different decision. Someone asked why. Near as I can tell, I gave the reason. I understand you don't like it!!!!

Salty and all others who feel strongly about this -
The best way to "complain" is by playing ATG9 all eras exclusively, and avoiding the ATG9 leagues.
If SOM sees the all eras version is far more popular than the other, then maybe just maybe, they'll change their minds because it's affecting their bottom line.
Personally, I'm not going to participate in any more ATG9 leagues, just the all eras version from now on.

The problem is that many people reflexively choose the default option, both when creating leagues and when trying to join a league. I've done this myself and it is annoying to have to go back and change it once you realize you can't search for pre 1900 players. It is not only logical but consistent with past ATG seasons to have the full player pool as the default and subsets as secondary options.

I believe that most active managers who play with some regularity voted in the polls that are used to select the quarterly additions to the ATG player set. Clearly enough wanted the pre 1900 cards or they wouldn't have been voted in. They are there because the active users of the game wanted them in the set. Period.

To claim that modern baseball began at any specific point seems arbitrary and perhaps contrived and even disingenuous. To further claim that pre-1901 "baseball" was not baseball is simply inflammatory. It sure wasn't water polo, basketball, or football. Rule changes have been made since the inception of the professional game. One can hardly compare eras definitively and say this is baseball and this is not. The fact that we can do just this in this fantasy simulation is what attracted me to ATG in the first place. In addition to rule changes, equipment changes, player pool demographics and characteristics (e.g. Blacks, Hispanics and Asian players making up increasing percentages of professional players and players tend to be much larger and better conditioned than 100 or even 50 years ago) not to mention performance enhancing drugs and stadium dimensions and night games are all variables that have constantly evolved over time and fundamentally altered how the game is played.

Is the deadball era at all comparable to the ensuing live ball era? Surely the 1930 season bears only a superficial resemblance to the 1906 game. The modification of just one variable, how lively the ball is, had a dramatic difference.

Bottom line; we have been conditioned through past practice with ATG to choose the full set as the default action when creating/joining a league. Why change that without a compelling reason to do so? I have seen no arguments advanced in this thread that I find remotely compelling enough to justify such a change in practice.

Looks like it is hard to find leagues to even fill now that ATG 9 has been dichotomized.

I hope this gets fixed.

Salty and all others who feel strongly about this -
The best way to "complain" is by playing ATG9 all eras exclusively, and avoiding the ATG9 leagues.
If SOM sees the all eras version is far more popular than the other, then maybe just maybe, they'll change their minds because it's affecting their bottom line.
Personally, I'm not going to participate in any more ATG9 leagues, just the all eras version from now on.

think druid has addressed this fully-
people, especially anyone who hasn't paid attention to this argument will go to the default.

When SoM sent out the survey- there were no questions of preferences.
People who didn't like something complained about it as is their right - but why would anyone think I better tell them which features they would like to remain the same?
That's how we got 1. Repricing 2. RPs Changes 3. wrong default setting
and that's not to say these are all awful, some is okay but...
See the squeaky wheel principle.