Tuesday Trivia....What TWO HOFers wore #7......

[tedzan]

If you are having an LSD trip that causes you to stand perpendicular to the Jack Dunn card, then it might just appear to you to be a "horizontal"

Regards

[tedzan]

My understanding why Joe Gordon was elected to the HOF is two-fold......

1) He was an All-Star 2nd baseman (same reason given for Maz's HOF selection)

2) Indeed, he was good enough to be in every All-Star game (9) in his career except his 1st year.


Really, when the discussion comes up of who is in (or not) in the HOF. In my opinion, why Gil Hodges
has been slighted is a big mystery to me. You like to compare stats (and his numbers are great); so,
tell me why Hodges is not in ? ?


TED Z

[Rob D.]

Ted,

If you use the flawed logic that there are players in the Hall of Fame whose stats are just a little bit better than (insert player here), you'll eventually reach a point where every player is worthy of induction.

Bill James has done a great job of showing how flawed the "Well this player's in, so then this player deserves to be in, too" argument is.

As for the horizontal Dunn references, I think most people realize that my posts about the T206 Dunn being a horizontal pose were jabs at you and your continual snotty reactions to most folks when they dare to question anything you might post about the T206 issue. Sorry I couldn't be more clear.

[Matt]

Were the horizontal cards printed differently then the vertical cards?

Edited to say: Rob - did you mean snooty or snotty?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted, given who is in the HOF I think a very good case can be made for Hodges, given the numbers he put up during the 1950s. His career stats come up a bit short, but if Jim Rice is in on the theory that he had an outstanding 10 years stretch, I think (without going back and checking) that Hodges qualifies on that basis too.

EDIT TO ADD Of course the same logic would say Steve Garvey should be in. On balance I would probably not have voted Rice in even though he played for Boston, and say no to Hodges and Garvey as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I assume the question was not meant for Ted alone; 17 was Dizzy Dean.

[tedzan]

Here are the ballplayers that wore #17 on your Cardinals subsequent to Dizzy Dean......

1945 Augie Bergamo
1946 unknown
1947 unknown
1948 unknown
1949 Joe Garagiola
1950 Joe Garigiola
1951 Joe Garigiola
1952 Les Fusselmann
1953 Sal Yvars
1954 Vic Raschi
1955 Mel Wright

When did they retire Dizzy's uniform # ?


TED Z

[tedzan]

This opinion of yours......
"I think most people realize that my posts about the T206 Dunn being a horizontal pose were jabs at you and
your continual snotty reactions to most folks when they dare to question anything you might post about the
T206 issue."

.....is not shared by as "most" as you imagine. For many years, at the National, at the Philly Show, and many,
many emails that I have received......have been very complimentary to me regarding my theories, posts, etc.
regarding the T206's. Essentially, because I have informed them of certain aspects of the T206 set that they
did not fully understand.

But, if you think I'm a "snotty" dude, there's nothing I can say or do to change your impression of me. And.....
frankly, I don't give a damn !


TED Z

[FrankWakefield]

Hey Ted,

Just saw your thread. Even if I hadn't known the answer, I knew you had to be talking about your Yankees.

So a Cardinals question for you... In honor of one of their Hall of Fame pitchers, the Cardinals retired uniform #17. The question, who was the last Cardinal to wear #17 ?



And the two great Cardinals who's first name was Francis... Frankie Frisch and Cardinal Francis Spellman.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tedzan

If you are having an LSD trip that causes you to stand perpendicular to the Jack Dunn card, then it might just appear to you to be a "horizontal"

Regards

LOL Ted. Seriously, the position of his glove does not make sense to me if you think the card is vertical. One does not catch a pop fly with the glove turned in towards one's face, rather, the glove would be turned away from the face. In my opinion. Also if you assume the card is vertical he is leaning back at a weird angle and must have the most supple neck in history.

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOL Ted. Seriously, the position of his glove does not make sense to me if you think the card is vertical. One does not catch a pop fly with the glove turned in towards one's face, rather, the glove would be turned away from the face. In my opinion. Also if you assume the card is vertical he is leaning back at a weird angle and must have the most supple neck in history.

hmmmmm.....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Oh so Dunn is making an over the shoulder grab on the run, I get it, now if only we could explain the strange angle at which he is leaning back and the rubber neck.

[tedzan]

Craig....I was going to respond to Peter, but your pix of Willie Mays' great catch speaks louder
than any thing I could say.

But, I'll ask this, anyhow.

Hey Peter......

When you played BB in your youth (or now), what position did (or do) you play and how did you
prepare to catch a sky-high fly ?

Incidently, Jack Dunn played SS and 3rd base for most of his career. Therefore, you can bet that
he had to catch many a sky-high fly and his T206 pose shows exactly how he did it.


TED Z

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted at any position assuming I were not doing the Willie Mays over the shoulder thing and I was facing a ball coming AT me, my glove would be turned the other way. You don't catch a ball with the glove turned in. Would you? And note how if you look at it horizontally both his face and the glove are perfectly aligned with the orientation of the card. Coincidence?

[Anthony S.]

So I'm the only person that realizes it's a diagonal?

[Peter_Spaeth]

That illustrates how far back he is leaning (on a ball coming towards him) if the pose is vertical.

[Matt]

I asked above but it got buried. Weren't all the cards printed vertically? If so, what is this discussion really about?