19th century cards

[rudel.dietrich]

This next version I am wanting to run a 19th century theme team. But the issue is that you need about 75 cards or so to get going.
And 19th century players tend to be extremely expensive.
I was hoping 40 or so 19th century players could be added between iron and gold. This would help you from having to drop several hundred euros at the start of PT to get the diamonds and perfects just to fill out a 25 man roster.

Thanks for reading

[Westheim]

Since the new card base has "over 4,000 cards", I'd say the chances for some more variety in all card ranks aren't that bad.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Since the new card base has "over 4,000 cards", I'd say the chances for some more variety in all card ranks aren't that bad.

For those like me who were looking for a point of reference, my manage cards filter in PT20 informs me that there are a mere 3804 cards total over there.

[Kris Jardine]

the pre-1900 cards are very hard to normalize into ratings that reflect how they actually performed at the time. That being said, I've been researching a lot of pre-WW1 stuff trying to expand on our card base offering. We'll see what comes out of it

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Kris Jardine

the pre-1900 cards are very hard to normalize into ratings that reflect how they actually performed at the time. That being said, I've been researching a lot of pre-WW1 stuff trying to expand on our card base offering. We'll see what comes out of it

Thank you
I may truely never be able to run a 19th century theme team , but I could perhaps run a pre WW1 team.

[SF Giants]

Originally Posted by Kris Jardine

the pre-1900 cards are very hard to normalize into ratings that reflect how they actually performed at the time. That being said, I've been researching a lot of pre-WW1 stuff trying to expand on our card base offering. We'll see what comes out of it

Kris, do you guys check every rating on every card? I am just curious if there is any hindrance, except your own decision, which prevents creation of even much larger card DB. Having X cards from every team for each (X)XX seasons would be amazin...

[Kris Jardine]

Originally Posted by SF Giants

Kris, do you guys check every rating on every card? I am just curious if there is any hindrance, except your own decision, which prevents creation of even much larger card DB. Having X cards from every team for each (X)XX seasons would be amazin...

I won't go down the rabbit hole here, but we have a team of people that review ratings. There are many reasons why we don't just add 10,000 cards into the game most of which would require way too many characters to explain

[rburgh]

Baseball before 1894 wasn't really anything like baseball today. It was more like fast pitch softball. And the depth of talent just wasn't there. We all know who the great players were back then, but the quality drops of precipitously. I tried several times to run a solo sim of baseball from 1892 forward, and pretty much every team had hitters who couldn't hit .220 and pitchers who just sucked. There was a guy (I can't remember his name) who pitched a grand total of under 30 innings in MLB who once won several Cy Young awards in one of my replays.

[rburgh]

Here are the cards I have identified as being from guys who played predominantly in the 19th Century. All are PEAK cards. Cap Anson 96 Charlie Bennett 76 Tommy Bond 99 Dan Brouthers 95 Charlie Buffinton 96 Bob Caruthers 92 Ice Box Chamberlain 97 Roger Connor 98 George Davis 100 Hugh Duffy 96 Buck Ewing 95 Duke Farrell 92 Kid Gleason 92 Hughie Jennings 100 Tim Keefe 100 Willie Keeler 93 King Kelly 100 Matt Kilroy 98 Silver King 94 Bobby Mathews 100 Tommy McCarthy 96 Jim McCormick 98 Joe McGinnity 91 Bid McPhee 94 Tony Mullane 93 Kid Nichols 91 Amos Rusie 100 Jack Stivetts 96 Sam Thompson 92 Mike Tiernan 92 George Van Haltren 91 Monte Ward 98 Mickey Welch 91 Deacon White 82 Jim Whitney 98 George Wright 72 Cy Young 98 Charles Zimmer 73

You can make a hell of a team from that crew.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by rburgh

Here are the cards I have identified as being from guys who played predominantly in the 19th Century. All are PEAK cards. Cap Anson 96 Charlie Bennett 76 Tommy Bond 99 Dan Brouthers 95 Charlie Buffinton 96 Bob Caruthers 92 Ice Box Chamberlain 97 Roger Connor 98 George Davis 100 Hugh Duffy 96 Buck Ewing 95 Duke Farrell 92 Kid Gleason 92 Hughie Jennings 100 Tim Keefe 100 Willie Keeler 93 King Kelly 100 Matt Kilroy 98 Silver King 94 Bobby Mathews 100 Tommy McCarthy 96 Jim McCormick 98 Joe McGinnity 91 Bid McPhee 94 Tony Mullane 93 Kid Nichols 91 Amos Rusie 100 Jack Stivetts 96 Sam Thompson 92 Mike Tiernan 92 George Van Haltren 91 Monte Ward 98 Mickey Welch 91 Deacon White 82 Jim Whitney 98 George Wright 72 Cy Young 98 Charles Zimmer 73

You can make a hell of a team from that crew.

You can, but that would be a super expensive team.
I was hoping for about 30-35 iron to silver cards to start out with until you can afford the more expensive cards.

[rburgh]

You're out of luck in that regard. I think only 8 cards that aren't diamonds, and a couple of those are late career seasons from 19th century stars that are dated from 1901 - 1905. I suggest you just run a pre-WW I team, where you can find a few irons and bronzes.

Bronzes - 1904 Fred Tenney, 1906 Joe Tinker, 1906 Johnny Evers, 1906 Jiggs Donahue, 1907 Davy Jones, 1908 Boss Schmidt, 1908 George McBride, 1908 Red Dooin, 1909 George Moriarty, 1911 Ira Thomas, 1912 Duffy Lewis, 1914 Honus Wagner, 1914 Roger Bresnahan, 1915 Dick Hoblitzell, 1916 Mike Mowrey, 1917 Mike Menosky, 1919 Morrie Rath, 1919 Nemo Leibold

Irons - 1905 Lave Cross, 1909 Lee Tannehill, 1918 Clyde Milan, 1919 Larry Kopf

A large number of those guys are catchers. I suggest you just allow yourself Irons and Bronzes from any era and replace them as they come. You're going to have a hard time finding many of these guys on the AH.

[Justinw303]

I notice there's a bronze Honus Wagner this year (maybe last year too, not sure) and he started out in the era.

[Lukas Berger]

19th century individual player seasons are, generally speaking, way too weird and tough to work with for us to make good cards out of them.

Even the Peak cards can be problematic, but still much easier than single season from the 19th century. Like rburgh mentions, they were basically playing a different sport back then, and it doesn't translate terribly well.

Maybe something we can look at for the future though, including a few more lower level 19th century guys.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

19th century individual player seasons are, generally speaking, way too weird and tough to work with for us to make good cards out of them.

Even the Peak cards can be problematic, but still much easier than single season from the 19th century. Like rburgh mentions, they were basically playing a different sport back then, and it doesn't translate terribly well.

Maybe something we can look at for the future though, including a few more lower level 19th century guys.

I obviously don't know how much manual work it took you guys to make Negro League cards, but I would assume that the 19th century guys would be more along the lines of tweaking in comparison. I'm not a coder, but I'd be happy to help if you need it.

[Kris Jardine]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

I obviously don't know how much manual work it took you guys to make Negro League cards, but I would assume that the 19th century guys would be more along the lines of tweaking in comparison. I'm not a coder, but I'd be happy to help if you need it.

Kind of apples and oranges though. With the Negro Leaguers, we just don't have a lot of stats, so we're filling in the gaps the best we can with the information we have. With 19th century guys, we have the stats, just difficult to translate them into ratings that make sense. Always going to be room for improvement in the process

[stl jason]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

19th century individual player seasons are, generally speaking, way too weird and tough to work with for us to make good cards out of them.

Even the Peak cards can be problematic, but still much easier than single season from the 19th century. Like rburgh mentions, they were basically playing a different sport back then, and it doesn't translate terribly well.

Maybe something we can look at for the future though, including a few more lower level 19th century guys.

I don't know... think the dev team has done a pretty solid job translating guys like Sliding Billy Hamilton, Matt Kilroy, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe and Jack Stivetts into the game.... (though I think Stivetts hitting ability is nerfed quite heavily compared to his actual stats when compared to contemporaries like Clarkson and Keefe; but there's always room for tweaking/improvements)... keep 'em comin'

[rburgh]

I think the problem with the 18th century guys is that they kept tweaking the rulse, coupled with the fact that there were so many totally unqualified players on rosters. It's probably hard to deal with the fact that 70% of the players were above average because the roster fillers were just so bad.