T206 Hugh Duffy Question

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike McGrail</b><p>Greetings from Windmill Country,<BR><BR>As you Monster collectors know, Hugh Duffy is one of the many HOFers who appear in the T206 set. His only card lists him as playing for Chicago Amer. Judging from the possible backs of this card, it was issued in the 460 series. Therefore in 1911. All normal up until now.<BR><BR>What is strange is that Hugh Duffy ...<BR>... played his last game in 1906, long before the T206s were released.<BR>... never played for the Chicago team of the AL. He did play for the Chicago team of the NL from 1888 to 1889 and in the Chicago team of the PL in 1890.<BR><BR>So the $64,000 question is ... How did Hugh find his way onto a late series T206 card listing a team that he never played for?<BR><BR>Can anyone help here? Am I missing something obvious?<BR><BR>Ciao for now,<BR><BR>Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John(z28jd)</b><p>Sorry Mike,its very obvious.Ill give you a hint Its the same reason John McGraw is in the set

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike McGrail</b><p>... MANAGERS at the time!!!<BR><BR>What a brain fart on my part.<BR><BR>Thanks John<BR><BR>Mike<BR><BR>PS - Bill, please feel free to delete this thread REAL QUICK so that a minimum amount of folks catch on to how dumb I can be sometimes! 8-)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>I think you were deceived by the batting pose, Mike. How dare they give a manager a bating pose. he does have nice sweater on to keep him warm on the bench. Heck, I guees they have poses of pitchers batting and batters throwing so that theory is out the window.<BR><BR>Sorry I couldn't help, Mike. I thought I would try to make you look a little better but I don't think it worked.<BR><BR>Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>Hold on, I want my turn to have some fun before the thread is deleted...<BR><BR>Actually that's a good question. Not everyone is a baseball historian. The whole idea of a good bulletin board is to have knowledgable contributors that aren't going to poke fun at all the silly questions that are asked... hahahaha... just kidding... <BR><BR>Hugh Jennings was a player manager whose playing days were pretty much over in 1903.<BR><BR>Clark Griffith had a batting pose in the set but his playing days were pretty much over around the same time as McGraw and Duffy.<BR><BR>Fred Lake appears in the T206 set, he was the manager for Boston but he appeared in 3 games in 1910 after a 12 year absence from playing for Pittsburgh in 1898.<BR><BR>It would have been neat to see a Connie Mack card in the monster.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>where he looks like he's sitting on the crapper reading the paper. I forget which one it is.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bcornell</b><p>Mike has proven that there are no dumb questions. At least, I think he has.<BR><BR>McGraw got in to T207, as well. He's the only manager in this set and is shown fielding (?).<BR><BR>Weirdest manager inclusion I can think of is Frank Bancroft in T204. Clark Griffith was the actual manager and is included in the set, but why Bancroft is there is anyone's guess - he managed 16 games for the Reds in 1902 and never again. One possibility is that the 11x11 sheet (121 players) needed one more body and Old Frank got lucky.<BR><BR>Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John(z28jd)</b><p>Maybe Frank Bancroft actually made the T204 set and put himself in it just because he could<BR><BR>I think the real story is Bancroft was a good friend of superstar shortstop Tom Rielly,and Tom said he wouldnt appear in the set unless Mr Bancroft was also in it.Not wanting to lose Rielly from the set for obvious reasons the Ramly people decided to let Bancroft appear in the set and the rest is history

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bcornell</b><p>To take this in-joke further: who would want to hoard T204's of a lifetime .180 hitter? The same guy who's going to pay $24.95 shipping & handling for 2 cards...<BR><BR>Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John(z28jd)</b><p>I knew i shouldve waited beofre i wrote that and i have a feeling i shouldnt have included anti-red sox slogans in my payment to you.<BR><BR>but 24.95? does that mean youre overnighting the cards? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>I wouldnt call 3 T204s of the same guy "hoarding" its not like having 16 old judge cards of the same guy,now that would be hoarding

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Verrill</b><p><BR>I think the fact that Duffy is depicted with a bat misrepresents his true role, as Manager, not active player. It also could possibly reflect on the actual expertise and understanding (umm, lack thereof) of the artist that drafted this pose of Duffy with bat. <BR><BR>JV

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>In the olden days, coaching staffs were not what they are today and managers took a much more active role in player development if they were so inclined. Showing Duffy working a bat is indicative of his active role in player development. There were also a lot more player-managers, which means that the idea of seeing a manager on the field was not anomalous. This carries over to the modern era in some cases. Tommy LaSorda was well known for throwing BP while he managed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>It would have been nice to see McGraw in a boxing pose...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I just got an N300 of him (yay) and he's kind of cockeyed...Oddly coincidental how a guy with Shaq's eyes hits .438 and Shaq's free throw % is about that <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>