Chicken Wolf

Yeah, I prefer 1894-forward cards, regardless of league.

I think that’s conflating a couple of issues. I stated my preference to see MLB cards, mainly because AA and other pre-1900 cards are based on a different set of rules than “modern” baseball. That’s why I personally prefer MLB cards. Many in the community like those cards, which I understand. The only part I have in this process is posting stats so people have an idea what their nominations actually would play like in Strat, and I do that because I enjoy it.

As far as more Negro League cards, from what I understand that came from Strat. I don’t know if they don’t have more of the cards based on NeL seasons or what.

As an aside, I do remember at one time Strat wanted to add Cuban and Japanese cards to ATG, and the ATG community spoke and that was rejected.

Thanks for the reply. Just to be precise though, the American Association, Players League, and Federal League are all MLB. As are seven Negro Leagues as of this year. And according to some, the National Association. (So is the Union Association, but that one was probably erroneously conferred.)

It sounds like your objections to the AA and PL are less about the leagues themselves and more about the era they existed in. As far as I'm aware, they were playing by largely the same rules as the NL and were considered peers of the NL. So saying they should be kept out because they were "pre-modern" proves too much as that would exclude pre-1893 NL cards as well. Which, if that's your preference, that's obviously as valid as anyone else's, I just think it'd be more accurate to say you object to those leagues because you don't like ANY early cards in the set and this is a backdoor way to reduce their presence, not because they were qualitatively different from the NL.

Anyway, we don't need to debate the merits of the various leagues here, although we certainly can as I find it an interesting subject. (If others are interested, I did an earlier post on the subject examining the quality of the various leagues from an analytical standpoint: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=649894 ) But the main thing I wanted to nail down is whether the AL/NL-only policy actually came from Strat or if it emerged from this thread. Honestly it's hard for me to imagine Strat giving enough of a shit either way to make such a policy.

Note: I have reached out to Strat on multiple occasions re adding negro league cards via this specific process. Strat still wants to maintain control over that at this time, but promises that more negro league cards are coming to the ATG set in the future. I would welcome the opportunity to nominate/add some additional negro league players.

In addition, Strat has maintained that all AL/NL cards up to one season back are eligible via this specific process. They have not provided any great clarity re the early leagues other than AL/NL, so that's a gray area of sorts.

Note: I have reached out to Strat on multiple occasions re adding negro league cards via this specific process. Strat still wants to maintain control over that at this time, but promises that more negro league cards are coming to the ATG set in the future. I would welcome the opportunity to nominate/add some additional negro league players.

Me too! I think I will get in their ear about this as well. I just don't see why Negro Leagues should be excluded from the community nominating process. And with their recent recognition as majors and the addition of their stats to Baseball Reference, I don't see how it's tenable to continue this way. My offseason project is going to be to dive into those BBref stats and I'd love to be able to put what I learn to use over here.

As far as other non-AL/NL majors go, it sounds like Strat's only stipulation was no Negro Leagues? Whereas the NA/AA/PL/FL would be ok with Strat (hence the older additions noted in this thread)? Come to think of it, if Strat's only stipulation was "MLB-only" then we could easily and correctly argue that NeL is included in that now.