how about Uke? -- or, where are the bench player votes

" It is after all All Time Greats and not All Time Nobodys."

So there should be nobody under, say, 4 million?

As for 172 PA, again (please read this in all caps) I am not advocating Uke's card.

If you're going to disagree with me, use your obvious reading comprehension, frequently on display, and actually address what I've said.

I am trying to open a dialogue about having a more interesting vote than just 20 guys costing 8 million. And please look at the ATG set, sorted by "least AB." Think all those guys under 150 AB should be removed? Good luck filling out an 80m roster.

So there should be nobody under, say, 4 million?

I NEVER said that.

As for 172 PA, again (please read this in all caps) I am not advocating Uke's card.

I was responding to your specific example.

As to reading comprehension I believe I was addressing exactly what you said regarding 172 PAs.

In 65 his whole line was 172 PA (that's plenty)

You stated 172 was plenty
I responded...

Not sure I agree 172 PAs is plenty

I simply stated my opinion that I disagreed that 172 was plenty.

I am trying to open a dialogue

I am simply engaging in that dialogue you claim to be trying to open. Sorry that I did not agree with everything you said. Not sorry though that I had an opinion. Everyone has one. You express yours. I express mine. That is a dialogue also known as a conversation. There is absolutely no reason to respond by throwing insults about people's reading comprehension. If my crystal ball malfunctions and I fail to read your mind right and respond to a hard number like 172 when you really meant something else you will just have to cut me some slack and do a better job of expressing what you are contending. For example if you do not believe 172 is plenty then use some other words than "(that's plenty)"

Think all those guys under 150 AB should be removed? Good luck filling out an 80m roster.

First, I never said all guys under 150 AB should be removed. Talk about reading comprehension.

And please look at the ATG set, sorted by "least AB." Think all those guys under 150 AB should be removed? Good luck filling out an 80m roster.

Took your advice and did just that. The vast majority of those guys are worthless. I am quite certain I could fill out an 80 mil roster without using a single card based on under 150 ABs. And before you insult my reading comprehension I will admit in advance that I do not know of any other way to interpret "guys under 150 AB" than guys under 150 AB".

I will stand by my opinion that there are plenty of cheapo sub mil cards to populate benches. I will stand by my opinion that new cards for ATG should at least have been good enough to be major contributors to their respective teams with enough ABs to have a reasonably reliable card reflective of what they were. The card needs to at the very least have been a decent player having a decent season.

I would make exceptions for bench players on teams if at some time Strato decides to add full teams to the set. But I will be very unlikely to vote for any player card which is basically worthless.

Think all those guys under 150 AB should be removed?

There have been many requests to remove these fringe cards based on insufficient real life stat samples. Would I be in favor of removal? I have never been a strong advocate of existing card removal. But after giving it some more thought I just might. I feel much the same about these cards based on insufficient data as I did the fantasim cards.

I do not think 150 ABs is where I would draw the line though. That leaves me with the question of where I might want the line drawn.

I do not think I would name a specific number of ABs or PAs. Any number I did name would likely become a point of contention. Here is the broad minimum requirement I would place. Any new cards considered for adding should have had to be a major part of his team. To me that means he started in a significant percentage of his team's games. Whether that is 50% or a higher or lower percentage I would prefer to do more research in to examples of players who would be impacted.

This is a little off the topic, but not too far. Why can't SOM have more Negro Leagers? Why can't we get more added to the set so we can have an all Negro League - league. For instance I have a Negro League set for another game and it has some different players That SOM doesn't have such as: Jesse Barbour, Lyman Bostock Sr., Piper Davis, Howard Easterling, Joe Green, Gentry Jessup, Lefty LaMarque, and Luis Tiant Sr. And I probably missed a few. My point, is of course, that there are many more Negro Leagers and they could be added. Food for thought.

I think it is probable because their source for reliable data has ... well ... limited data. To be meaningful whatever data is available from whatever negro league players/teams being considered there has to be a sufficient number of cross league competition (MLB and NL). Otherwise a .300 or .400 becomes somewhat meaningless.