ATG9 default vote - POLL PLEASE VOTE !

I can't seem to find the bottom line reason for the vote, can one side or the other please clarify?

I can't seem to find the bottom line reason for the vote, can one side or the other please clarify?

The bottom line reason is bc the default set SHOULD include the players voted in by the community-- including the pre-1901 players the community voted on.
Right now the default set is only 1901 on--
which means that in order to get those players in, people have to know to use the drop down menus when they start a league.

I can't seem to find the bottom line reason for the vote, can one side or the other please clarify?

At least as far back as ATG6 (maybe even before) 1870s to present players were included in the standard ATG6, ATG7, and ATG8 player sets.

However, with the release of ATG9 now all of a sudden the 1870's to 1900 players have been excluded from the DEFAULT ATG9 set and have been relegated to a subset.

It appears that a fair number (if not the substantial majority) in the community would like the ATG9 DEFAULT to include the pre-1901 players as was the case in the previous sets.

SOM is reluctant to make a counter move without community input, thus the poll/vote to see if the the community REALLY wants to include the pre-1901 cards in the DEFAULT ATG9 set.

The 1800s players are dumb and leagues are better without them, though I would prefer a post-ww2 format like ATG8 had.

The 1800s players are dumb and leagues are better without them, though I would prefer a post-ww2 format like ATG8 had.

I have to say, this is really one of the most eloquent arguments we've seen laid out as of yet.
The chain of logic to make this assertion must've taken months to flesh out, going through a tedious process of
revisions to become the embodiment of oration we see here.

60-40 is far from a landslide.

This said, nobody will ever convince that Charlie Sweeney or whoever he is belongs to the same category as Greg Maddux, Walter Johnson and Grover Pete Alexander, even in a yearly basis mode.

It may be just over 60-40 but for me this issue is more of a logistical problem. Put ALL CARDS in the default set and let people decide to play this set or the nicely tuned "for whatever you want to accomplish" SUBSET. You have things that people want or have interest in the other games - your UNLEASHED-PRE/POST WW-ETC but let them go SELECT them. A lot of newbies are drifting now into SOM and ATG - let them play with whoever they want.

And is it 60-40 or is it nearly 50 more votes for one option than the other.

THATS A VERY CLEAR MAJORITY.

And hey you want a subset how about an ATG Mystery Game subset. Yeah I know that's a coding difficulty but how about randomly getting 5 different seasons of Babe Ruth or other players who have 5 or more seasons in ATG ? A lot of players love the Mystery Game.

How about an ATG Mystery Game - BARNSTORMERS "EVENT" ? Let's really separate the men from the boys ! The thought of this has me drooling Moose type slime......

60-40 is far from a landslide.

This said, nobody will ever convince that Charlie Sweeney or whoever he is belongs to the same category as Greg Maddux, Walter Johnson and Grover Pete Alexander, even in a yearly basis mode.

So 2 things:
first of all yeah, 61-39 got a little closer than 65-35 where it was earlier- but unless Putin (not a political statement- humor purely) decides to weigh in towards the end, its a pretty clear majority- you may not call it a landslide but given the large number of people voting that's a HIGH pct difference.

second - the problem you refer to of players considered less great being in the same circle is 2 fold.
one you mentioned, and that single seasons are not careers and we are here playing single seasons.
part 2 is that its an issue of how the cards are made reflective of that season -- its not an issue of convincing you that Sweeny 'belongs' -- but its also not an issue of the era the card comes from.

PS- apologies if anyone finds my responses too blunt. Am tired of fighting theses redundant battles. BUT if you give me a decent piece of logic to argue against won't complain.

I think Marc means that the rules of the game Sweeney pitched by are much different than they are today or even were in 1894. If the baseball rules in 1876 were the same as 1894 or 1947, I’d say add those cards too.
But they aren’t. Sweeney pitched underhand to batters who got to tell him where to lob it. Greg Maddux he ain’t. Single seasons aren’t the issue for me; it’s the rules those single seasons were played under. Love the 1894 cards and up—add them.
But it’s very true to say there is NO comparison between Sweeney and Pete Alexander.

Just because something has been debated before doesn’t mean an argument has lost its logical points.

I think Marc means that the rules of the game Sweeney pitched by are much different than they are today or even were in 1894. If the baseball rules in 1876 were the same as 1894 or 1947, I’d say add those cards too.
But they aren’t. Sweeney pitched underhand to batters who got to tell him where to lob it. Greg Maddux he ain’t. Single seasons aren’t the issue for me; it’s the rules those single seasons were played under. Love the 1894 cards and up—add them.
But it’s very true to say there is NO comparison between Sweeney and Pete Alexander.

Just because something has been debated before doesn’t mean an argument has lost its logical points.

Andy, hard to tell what someone means to say vs what they do say.
Were I arguing your side of the case it would be as you are saying 1894 bc of the rules change.
the counter argument to that however is simply that the majority of the community does not care enough about the rules changes not to have those players.

And for the second part its not an issue of comparing Sweeney to Alexander for 2 reasons
1) isn't the issue more with the card itself?-- just like you can argue so and so had a great season that their card simply does not reflect the opposite is true too- the seasons are supposed to be made comparatively within themselves (as they most of the time are) and if they are not, perhaps the fault lies with the card makers?
2) you can easily make an argument between players of any 2 eras --Does George Mikan belong in a game with Shaq?
Athleticism has changed radically in the last 40 -50 years- radically, accounting for just as much as rule changes.