View Single Post
  #20  
Old 11-28-2007, 07:02 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default 1909-1911 players who didn't get their own T206 card?

Posted By: J Hull

Barry, this is an excellent thread. Thanks for starting it.

To throw some numbers out, this is T206 cards by players' league:
National League = 204
American League = 184
Eastern League = 47
American Association = 39
Southern League = 20
Virginia League = 12
South Atlantic League = 10
Texas League = 6

For major leaguers, I think the player’s team had some effect on whether they were included.
Here’s total by team along with the teams’ finishing positions in the standings for the years 1908-1910 (the years when T206 selection was being done).

NL
New York = 54 ......... 1908 (2nd) 1909 (3rd) 1910 (2nd)
Chicago = 36 .......... 1908 (1st) 1909 (2nd) 1910 (1st)
Brooklyn = 26 ......... 1908 (7th) 1909 (6th) 1910 (7th)
Cincinnati = 23 ....... 1908 (5th) 1909 (4th) 1910 (5th)
Pittsburgh = 19 ....... 1908 (2nd) 1909 (1st) 1910 (3rd)
St. Louis = 18 ........ 1908 (8th) 1909 (7th) 1910 (7th)
Philadelphia = 14 ..... 1908 (4th) 1909 (5th) 1910 (4th)
Boston = 14 ........... 1908 (6th) 1909 (8th) 1910 (8th)

Based on team success, Brooklyn seems very overrepresented and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia seem underrepresented. Of course, market size surely played some role too.

AL
Detroit = 30 .......... 1908 (1st) 1909 (1st) 1910 (3rd)
New York = 27 ......... 1908 (8th) 1909 (5th) 1910 (2nd)
Chicago = 27 .......... 1908 (3rd) 1909 (4th) 1910 (6th)
Cleveland = 25 ........ 1908 (2nd) 1909 (6th) 1910 (5th)
Philadelphia = 22 ..... 1908 (6th) 1909 (2nd) 1910 (1st)
St. Louis = 22 ........ 1908 (4th) 1909 (7th) 1910 (8th)
Washington = 19 ....... 1908 (7th) 1909 (8th) 1910 (7th)
Boston = 12 ........... 1908 (5th) 1909 (3rd) 1910 (4th)

In the AL New York seems high, Philly a bit low, and Boston seems very underrepresented.

Clearly there's something a bit weird about Philadelphia (both the Phillies and the A's) and Boston's (the Doves a little and the Sox a lot) numbers. These numbers tend to support Ted's theory I think, but there's still no explanation I know of for why the Red Sox have so few players represented. No Wood, no Hooper, no Duffy Lewis, just to name three big ones.

Jamie

P.S. Just for comparison, Buffalo is the top minor league team with 11 cards...just one less than the Red Sox.

Reply With Quote