Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[Seven]

Originally Posted by BobC

I've heard and seen the arguments about who is the greatest this or that of all-time in baseball, and have said that to properly compare and rate players using different standards, measures, and context over the differing years and eras is not fair or proper. In my thinking, you can only reasonably determine who may have been the best by looking at and comparing just the players in particular eras, subject to similar rules, equipment, context, and so on. Otherwise, you end up getting the idiots who will try to tell you that Hyun Jin-Ryu was a much better pitcher than Warren Spahn ever was. .

Almost completely unrelated to the discussion, but I had a healthy chuckle when I saw this part of the post. Couldn't agree more!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Seven

Almost completely unrelated to the discussion, but I had a healthy chuckle when I saw this part of the post. Couldn't agree more!

Oh, that isn't a made up story, that actually happened and someone actually said that in a different thread on the forum a while back. Modern statisticians, with their modern biases, thinking most all modern players are better than all the older players. They refuse to take into consideration the context and all the other variables when comparing things from era to era in baseball, just like I brought up the thing about having to consider such differences and variables when comparing what is or isn't a rookie card, or even just a card for that matter, from really different eras in the collecting hobby as well.

To truly compare players from different eras, you would have to have a modern player actually born back in the day of an earlier baseball era, and grow up and learn to play in that earlier era, to actually be able to tell if they would have been better than an older era player or not. And the same thing with an older player and having them born today to see how they would turn out with all the modern advantages of science, medicine, equipment, and so on while ending up playing in the games of today. Context is a huge thing, and to my thinking can't be simply defined and measured with some numbers or mathematical formulas. And sort of the same thing with cards and rookie cards. You can't just take the Bowman/Topps/Leaf post 1947 modern era definition of a rookie card being one from a main, nationally distributed set, and simply apply that same definition to everything in the hobby going back to the 1860's. Otherwise, you end up with Babe Ruth's rookie card(s) being from the 1933 Goudey set after all. LOL

So in truth, this isn't completely unrelated to the discussion at all, as it illustrates and shows how thinking and biases from one area, in regards to baseball and the game itself, can be so easily transferred and refocused on another area, such as baseball card collecting.

[BobC]

.

[BobC]

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions on if foreign cards can be considered as a player's rookie card then? I imagine that question can get a bit more interesting in regard to Negro League players who maybe had cards printed while they were in Cuban or other foreign leagues, and not really in any mainstream American card/collectible issues.

I guess the question would/could come down to maybe whether the card/collectible issue pictured them with what is considered a major league team or not. I would assume a card depicting someone playing in a Winter league, and/or on a Latin, Japanese, or other foreign team, would not be considered as a major league card/collectible. And therefore, if your definition of a rookie card was solely based on it being a major league image and representation, those cards would never be considered a player's rookie card. But if your definition of a rookie card included a player's first ever depiction on a card/collectible as a professional player (or as a minor leaguer or amateur if you had an even more relaxed rookie card definition), then I can see some people considering such foreign cards as rookie cards after all. Depends a lot on the collector themself, and what they think, and not necessarily on what the majority of others in the hobby think or believe after all, IMO.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BobC

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions on if foreign cards can be considered as a player's rookie card then? I imagine that question can get a bit more interesting in regard to Negro League players who maybe had cards printed while they were in Cuban or other foreign leagues, and not really in any mainstream American card/collectible issues.

I guess the question would/could come down to maybe whether the card/collectible issue pictured them with what is considered a major league team or not. I would assume a card depicting someone playing in a Winter league, and/or on a Latin, Japanese, or other foreign team, would not be considered as a major league card/collectible. And therefore, if your definition of a rookie card was solely based on it being a major league image and representation, those cards would never be considered a player's rookie card. But if your definition of a rookie card included a player's first ever depiction on a card/collectible as a professional player (or as a minor leaguer or amateur if you had an even more relaxed rookie card definition), then I can see some people considering such foreign cards as rookie cards after all. Depends a lot on the collector themself, and what they think, and not necessarily on what the majority of others in the hobby think or believe after all, IMO.

I would say rules 1 and 2 for rookie card classification are that it has to be a card and can't have been issued prior to the year of the player's major league debut, but that of course has changed in recent years as a subset of Negro League teams have now been retroactively classified as MLB teams, as well they should be. What country a card was printed in or distributed in shouldn't make any difference.

[darwinbulldog]

Mind you, if the player has a card issued prior to the year of his MLB debut I can understand why that would be more valuable than his actual rookie card, but I just interpret the word rookie in the phrase "rookie card" as referring to the status of the player rather than of the card itself. Otherwise identifying a player's rookie card is identical to just identifying his first card. Nothing wrong with an N172 Kid Nichols or a 1993 SP Derek Jeter, but they are of course cards of minor leaguers.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I would say rules 1 and 2 for rookie card classification are that it has to be a card and can't have been issued prior to the year of the player's major league debut, but that of course has changed in recent years as a subset of Negro League teams have now been retroactively classified as MLB teams, as well they should be. What country a card was printed in or distributed in shouldn't make any difference.

So to be clear, if a Negro League player didn't have any earlier cards of him playing for one of the now recognized Negro ML teams in the U.S., but did have as his very first card say a Cuban issue of him playing for a Winter league Cuban team, and not a recognized Negro ML team, you would say the Cuban issued, Winter league team card is his major league professional rookie card?

There is no right or wrong answer, just checking on what you think and meant by what you were saying,

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BobC

So to be clear, if a Negro League player didn't have any earlier cards of him playing for one of the now recognized Negro ML teams in the U.S., but did have as his very first card say a Cuban issue of him playing for a Winter league Cuban team, and not a recognized Negro ML team, you would say the Cuban issued, Winter league team card is his major league professional rookie card?

There is no right or wrong answer, just checking on what you think and meant by what you were saying,

I believe I dodged that particular question. I'll give it some more thought. I presume in this case that the card was issued in a year that the player did play in the majors but that he appears on the card with a different team; is that what you mean?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Bob:

I have always considered foreign issues that are actually cards such as Cabanas, Punch, Tomas Gutierrez, Billiken, Nacionales, Baguer Chocolate, Propagandas Montiel, Toleteros, Denia, etc. to be candidates for rookie card status, particularly but not limited only to Negro League players as there was never a U.S. issued card for any of them up until the Jackie Robinson era. I am aware that Harrison Studios issued a few Grays postcards during the early 1930’s but most are single known examples although a few dupes do exist.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Please delete

[bcbgcbrcb]

Interesting point regarding the SP Jeter being a pre-rookie card. The way that I have always treated these situations is whether the set that the card appears in was designed to be an MLB set or minor league set. In this case, 1993 SP was clearly a Major League issue although several minor league prospects such as Johnny Damon, Dmitri Young, etc. were included. Thus, I consider this to be Jeter’s RC.

Similar situations have come up in the past regarding a few N172 Old Judges such as the just mentioned Kid Nichols. He does appear in a minor league uniform in this set but by and large, the set consists primarily of Major Leaguers. Yes, I know that several minor league teams were also included and if these were given their own set designation, I would not count them as rookie cards but that is not the case.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I believe I dodged that particular question. I'll give it some more thought. I presume in this case that the card was issued in a year that the player did play in the majors but that he appears on the card with a different team; is that what you mean?

Yes, he's already playing on a recognized Negro ML team, but hasn't had any card issued playing with that or any other Negro ML team yet. Instead, he goes and plays Winter ball in Cuba in the offseason, and someone releases not just a card of him playing with a different non-ML team, but also one from an entirely different country, in this case, Cuba.

So, do you consider that Cuban card as this player's true rookie card even though it was with another team AND from a different country? And I guess as a secondary question then, would it make a difference to you as to being this player's true rookie card if instead he had a card with a different non-ML team, but that the card was actually issued in the U.S. and was not from a foreign country?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yes, he's already playing on a recognized Negro ML team, but hasn't had any card issued playing with that or any other Negro ML team yet. Instead, he goes and plays Winter ball in Cuba in the offseason, and someone releases not just a card of him playing with a different non-ML team, but also one from an entirely different country, in this case, Cuba.

So, do you consider that Cuban card as this player's true rookie card even though it was with another team AND from a different country? And I guess as a secondary question then, would it make a difference to you as to being this player's true rookie card if instead he had a card with a different non-ML team, but that the card was actually issued in the U.S. and was not from a foreign country?

I think this is an excellent edge case to help people think through what their criteria are so they can be internally consistent in their identification of rookie cards. My own definition would require that it be a card issued no earlier than the player's first year in the majors, so your hypothetical card is okay so far. The location of production and distribution is irrelevant, so your card is still okay. At that point for me it comes down to whether he is explicitly depicted as a member of the non-ML team.

If one requires a player to be shown in uniform to meet the definition of a baseball card, then we've got problems with most of the N172 Ansons, many of the top W600s, and a whole slew of guys from the early 90s. To me that's absurd. The clothing a player happens to be wearing in the image has no bearing on the matter. Otherwise, a card of me in a Cubs uniform would be more a baseball card than a card of Cap Anson in his street clothes. So what it comes down to is the actual printed text on the card. If it names his MLB team, I would then consider your hypothetical card a rookie card; if it names only his other team or neither team, I would consider it not a rookie card but a minor league issue released within the span of the player's MLB career.

The most interesting comparable case that comes to mind for me is the 1972 Puerto Rican Mike Schmidt issue. He's wearing the other team's uniform, but it came out during his MLB career, and he is explicitly identified as the Philadelphia Phillies' 3rd baseman in the text. (For reasons I indicated much earlier in this thread I've already determined that these "stickers" are in fact baseball cards, but that's another matter entirely.)

[BobC]

Don't disagree at all Phil that many people will consider foreign issues as eligible for rookie card status. Especially when the player has no other ML cards. Just shows how different people can have different ideas and different thinking when it comes to rookie cards, especially before 1948 when the Leaf/Bowman/Topps era of card production took over.

And the 1993 SP card of Jeter is another great example of the ambiguities and questions that can arise. Same sort of thing with the 1985 Mark McGwire Team USA "rookie" card. When the major card manufacturing companies started including these prospect and minor league players in their regular annual card issues, it potentially changes once again how people think and look at ML rookie cards. It was well over what, 30 years that the Bowman/Topps companies started issuing their annual card sets with just major league players in them? Those years were what kind of set the "gold standard" then for what many collectors during the hobby boom and after considered a player's true rookie card then. Later card issues then adding minor league and prospect players just start to muddy up the waters and thinking even more. Makes the whole issue clear as mud! LOL

[bcbgcbrcb]

I would stick with all of the foreign issues that I listed previously being rookie card candidates. In mostly all cases, the teams that they appear on for those cards are “major league” for that particular country. Very few of us have enough expertise to determine those that are not “major league”. Besides that, the alternative would be that we count the 1974/1978 Laughlin Old Time Black Stars cards as rookies for just about every Negro Leaguer that had a card issued. This would make all of these rookie cards issued between 30-60 after the player retired. Not a whole lot of fun to collect those if you ask me. Sometimes common sense wins out over a technicality.