Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[Mungo Hungo]

I don't have a dog in the fight, but does it not strike anyone else as odd that "rookie" cards of HOF managers are designated in these lists as their first cards as players? I scan some of these items, and it's hard for me to go any further than Sparky Anderson, whose rookie card is said to be 1959 (or even earlier). To me, it makes no sense. He played one year in the majors and hit .218, so why is his player card the "rookie"? Should it not be his first manager card?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

I don't have a dog in the fight, but does it not strike anyone else as odd that "rookie" cards of HOF managers are designated in these lists as their first cards as players? I scan some of these items, and it's hard for me to go any further than Sparky Anderson, whose rookie card is said to be 1959 (or even earlier). To me, it makes no sense. He played one year in the majors and hit .218, so why is his player card the "rookie"? Should it not be his first manager card?

Interesting question. So, what do you do with someone like Frank Robinson, who was a player, player/manager, and then a manager? Do you then consider him to have two rookie cards, one as a player and a second as a manager? His '57 Topps card is obviously his player rookie card, but then do you consider his '75 Topps card as his managerial rookie card, even though he was also a player, or do you wait until his '77 Topps card when he quit playing and was just a Manager for the Indians as his rookie managerial card? For all the credit Jackie Robinson got as the first black player in MBL history, the importance of Robinson's accomplishment as the first black manager in MLB history shouldn't be overlooked and just dismissed so easily. Had Robinson not been an obvious HOF caliber player, it is quite possible he would/should have deserved HOF status for being the first black manager in the majors anyway. I figured I'd throw that out there before someone says it should only matter for something a person deserves HOF recognition for.

If you're going to separate and consider a not so great player who later on went into the HOF for his managerial accomplishments instead, and determine and recognize he has a separate managerial rookie card, I would think that concept has to go both ways. So, someone that went into the HOF as a player, but also later on managed, should have separate managerial rookie card as well. And you really can't/shouldn't just limit such thinking to only HOFers, I would think it should be across the board for all players and managers then, and you recognize separate rookie playing and managerial cards for everyone, or you only recognize one rookie card for everyone based on when they first started playing.

[Mungo Hungo]

I agree that it would make sense to have separate player rookies and manager rookies across the board. For HOFers, it's generally clear-cut as whether the player was inducted for his player or manager success. For those where it's not clear-cut -- Joe Torre is a good example -- I suppose you could go with both, though if I collected those things, I would probably go with the player card if it were close.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BobC

Interesting question. So, what do you do with someone like Frank Robinson, who was a player, player/manager, and then a manager? Do you then consider him to have two rookie cards, one as a player and a second as a manager? His '57 Topps card is obviously his player rookie card

1956 Kahn's

[h2oya311]

Agreed, although I tend to prefer his smile on this 1956 Cincinnati Reds Team Issue Postcard over the scowl on his Kahn’s:

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

1956 Kahn's

Yes, but if you're someone who believes a rookie card is from a nationally distributed set, and not more of a regional set or specialty issue, then it is the 1957 Topps card that is considered his rookie card. Even the SCD Standard Catalogs and Beckett guides list Robinson's '57 Topps card as his rookie card. To each his own, and you are correct that it is Robinson's first appearance as a major leaguer in that Kahn's set. But after the 1948 start of the annual nationally distributed bubble gum card sets from Leaf and Bowman, followed a couple years later by Topps, player's rookie cards have all been considered as coming from those big, annually produced and distributed card sets, not any of the specialty, regional, or other oddball cards and issues. At least that seems to be the case with a large majority of people in the hobby.

If I had said '56 Kahn's instead of '57 Topps, I probably would have gotten someone else posting I was wrong about that. I just mentioned Robinson as he's a perfect example of the potential dilemma in looking for a rookie playing card and a rookie managerial card for the same person, and mentioned his '57 Topps cards as that is the card most people think of as his rookie.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

1956 Kahn's

Yes, but if you're someone who believes a rookie card is from a nationally distributed set, and not more of a regional set or specialty issue, then it is the 1957 Topps card that is considered his rookie card. Even the SCD Standard Catalogs and Beckett guides list Robinson's '57 Topps card as his rookie card. To each his own, and you are correct that it is Robinson's first appearance as a major leaguer in that Kahn's set. But after the 1948 start of the annual nationally distributed bubble gum card sets from Leaf and Bowman, followed a couple years later by Topps, player's rookie cards have all been considered as coming from those big, annually produced and distributed card sets, not any of the specialty, regional, or other oddball cards and issues. At least that seems to be the case with a large majority of people in the hobby.

If I had said '56 Kahn's instead of '57 Topps, I probably would have gotten someone else posting I was wrong about that. I just mentioned Robinson as he's a perfect example of the potential dilemma in looking for a rookie playing card and a rookie managerial card for the same person, and mentioned his '57 Topps cards as that is the card most people usually first think of as his rookie.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

I don't have a dog in the fight, but does it not strike anyone else as odd that "rookie" cards of HOF managers are designated in these lists as their first cards as players? I scan some of these items, and it's hard for me to go any further than Sparky Anderson, whose rookie card is said to be 1959 (or even earlier). To me, it makes no sense. He played one year in the majors and hit .218, so why is his player card the "rookie"? Should it not be his first manager card?

Great observation but consistent with my views on what a rookie card is for a pre-war player, I would want the managers first appearance on a collectible even if it was as a player and even if he was not accomplished as a player. In the case of Tommy Lasorda I would much prefer a card of his from the 1950s as a player than as a coach or manager in the 1970s.