Team vs. Individual "Cards"

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

How do you feel about collecting "cards" picturing a player's first appearance when it is included in a team picture as opposed to an individual "card"? (The word CARD is in quotation marks so as not to rekindle the debate about what constitutes a card) For example, John Smith appears on a 1910 team postcard and later on his first individual card in 1915. Which one would you prefer to own if you want to collect the earliest "card" issued picturing that player?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Phil, I will put the question back to you..which do you consider to be Nolan Ryan's rookie card..1967 Topps (Nolan and 34 other guys), 1968 Topps (Nolan and one other guy) or 1970 Topps (just Nolan)?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I never knew Nolan Ryan was on the 1967 Mets team card. Is that a fact? You learn something new every day!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Didn't Ryan appear on a 1969 Topps by himself?

[Archive]

Posted By: anthony

yes jon, he was by himself in the '69 card

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

But the problem is you can barely tell it's Nolan on the '67 Topps team card. You have to consider the '68 Topps card his rookie, having Jerry Koosman on the card is a plus.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

What a time for Mets fans, huh? Still reeling from expansion and being the losingest team ever and they bring up Seaver, Ryan and Koosman in the span of two years. Can anyone ever think of another team that had three young pitchers like that? They went on to win 850+ games. Too bad the Mets weren't smart enough to keep any of them.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Koufax, Drysdale and Erskine of the mid '50s Dodgers were not too bad...

I am sure there were other teams that had great home grown talent.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Erskine's career was almost over by the time Drysdale and Koufax got good. Johnny Podres was closer to being their third wheel. Even so, all of those guys had relatively short careers compared to Ryan, Seaver and Koosman who pitched for a combined 66 years in the majors.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux also have 850+ wins and the Braves were smart enough to keep them for most of their careers. Imagine if Steve Avery stayed healthy.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Phil:

To answer your question, I have no problem collecting an image of a player I'm looking for on a team card, especially if that player might not have an individual card (or at least one I can afford).

Case in point, when I was looking for something of Steve Brodie I was perfectly happy to obtain his image on an 1887 Canton cabinet knowing full well I'd never be able to get an 1894 Alpha Photo Engraving card of him. Whether the Canton cabinet was his first image, who knows?

Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Well, of Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux only one was from the Braves system. Forget Steve Avery -- imagine if Paul Marak stayed healthy!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

You're right, of course, Jeff. I'm not sure how I could forget about Maddux' Cub years, particularly since he won a CY Young award with them and that he had some disingenuous contract talks with "my" Yankees after that season.

Avery, though, was a much bigger prospect than Marak. Not even close. David Nied was another one I thought would be big.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

It may be a tad early for HOF enshrinement but here in New York we think that Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy will all win 300 games eventually.

Howard

Of course, they could just as easily turn into, Jason Isringhausen, Paul Wilson and Bill Pulsipher : )

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

Hey now,

Izzy's havin' a hell-of-a nice season and he's now the Cardinal's all-time saves leader. Pretty good, considering they've had Sutter, Todd Worrell, Lee Smith, and Eckersly. I used to dog him too, but have changed my tune a bit lately.

More on topic: My only contemporary Honus Wagner is the Pirate's Fatima team card, and it is one of my favorites!

Ken

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Shoot, I didn't mean to rag on Izzy. He's had a nice career, particularly this season. He even had a terrific rookie year as a starter with the Mets. But if two of the three current Yankee prospects flopped it would be a huge disappointment even if the third became a top closer.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

Getting back to the topic on hand, I should have specified pre-war cards when presenting my question as the Rookie "Card" for each post-war player is pretty well defined. I think just about everyone will agree that a Topps team card with 30+ players and none of them identified would not be a very desirable commodity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

that (pre-war or post-war) the first time a player is pictured on a card by himself is a rookie card, unless grouped with 1-3 other players and labelled as a "rookie"

I don't think team cards should count, unless it is the only time the player ever appeared on any card.

Peter C,
just my opinion, but I think that having Jerry Koosman on any card is actually a negative

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

I think of a rookie card as the first, Major League, card on which an individual is "named". This includes cards with 2, 3 or 4 players, but excludes team cards.