N28 and N29 are attractive sets, but some of the ballplayers [Archive]

View Full Version : N28 and N29 are attractive sets, but some of the ballplayers

Archive

11-09-2005, 07:10 AM

Posted By: identify7included causes me to wonder how they picked who to portray. More than half of the players shown, have their appearance in this set as their only baseball claim to fame. I know y'all know baseball, but who ever heard of Charles Bennett Joseph Mulvey Jas. Fogarty Chas. Getzein John Morrill Geo. Miller (career .193 hitter) Other than in these sets? Comments?

Archive

11-09-2005, 07:45 AM

Posted By: Marc S.Mulvey and Fogarty are no strangers to me - as I revel in studying the Philadelphia Phillies formation, and their players in the 19th century. Mulvey was the regular Phillies third baseman for a number of years - so no worries there. As for Fogarty, he was a damn good ballplayer I think! He was a jack-of-all-trades, able to play nearly every position. He was known for a good eye, and frequently got on base by walks. And he was very quick on the basepaths. He happened to die in 1891, so his career was cut short [a few years after one of his teammates, Chas. Ferguson, who was a phenom who died prematurely in the Spring of 1888] ~ms

Archive

11-09-2005, 07:45 AM

Posted By: barrysloateEveryone has wondered that and all I can think of is they were popular for some reason at the time of issue. Anson, Kelly, Ewing- no issues. Some of the others may have had fleeting fame in 1887. Look at the four ballplayers in the Kimball set- not exactly a Who's Who of the game's greatest stars. These cards were used to promote their respective cigarette brand, so the public had to be familiar with the players.

Archive

11-09-2005, 09:26 AM

Posted By: identify7Barry - there had to be something going for these guys. George Miller is a real curiousity to me. I guess I will have to try to read up on him some. All I have right now is he was a catcher who had 37 at bats in 1877, and 20 more at bats in 1884. Those dates do not even match up with the date of set issuance. And a 57 at bat career doesn't qualify many for appearance in a set - particularly with seasons seven years apart. I must have the wrong guy. How else do you spell George Miller? Edited to add: It is the wrong guy. George F. Miller has a lifetime .267 average with over 5000 ABs Sorry, my mistake. This guy did achieve mediocrity. I mistook him for G.C. Miller - who aspired to that level.

Archive

11-09-2005, 09:45 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Gil, Is it possible that the George Miller in the set is actually: George Frederick Miller 13 Seasons G-1317 AB-5167 H-1380 .267

Archive

11-09-2005, 10:03 AM

Posted By: identify7Yes Judge. That is correct. Now: why is he in the set? He did not lead his team in any offensive nor defensive catagory. He was platooned as catcher, typically getting 3-400 AB/season (prior to card issuance). And generally hitting less than .250.

Archive

11-09-2005, 10:17 AM

Posted By: barrysloateMiller had to be popular in 1887 for some reason because Allen & Ginter wanted you to keep buying their cigarettes in the hope of finding one of him. Exactly why is a mystery.

Archive

11-09-2005, 10:24 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)In 1888 he did lead the Pittsburgh team in batting average (.277 - 404AB) if you don't count Beckley's .344 in 283 ABs. The only thing that makes sense is that he must have been a popular player with the fans back then. I've always wondered the same about the players in this set - why these particular players? Some had obvious reasons but a few players will leave us wondering why.

Archive

11-09-2005, 10:50 AM

Posted By: jay behrensYou have to remember, back in the 19c, fielding was prized above all else and catchers were very popular. The original rules of the game were designed to showcase a players fielding, not his hitting exploits. Jay I'm incompetent at being incontenent.

Archive

11-09-2005, 08:59 PM

Posted By: Brian LindholmeCharlie was a famous catcher...I'm sure others have heard the story about him getting some consideration for HOF. His on field skills(not the best hitter, but catchers were not leaned on for their hitting in the early days) and the team's success led to some speculation. Who knows, it still might happen. Although this next section obviously has nothing to do with his inclusion in the N28/ N29 sets but there is another interesting story involving Charlie. It seems that he was involved in a train accident and lost both of his legs after being run over. He was towards the end of his career when the accident occurred and this tragedy may end up being what he gets remembered for best... Brian L.

Archive

11-10-2005, 02:07 AM

Posted By: Joe_G.As already stated, Bennett was considered the best defensive catcher of the 19th Century. He was dearly loved here in Detroit. Had his playing carrer cut short by a railroad incident that took both his legs. When the Tigers began play in the American League, they did so in Bennett Park. Charlie Getzein was also considered one of the games leading pitchers for a short time. He led the Championship 1887 Detroit team in pitching with a 29-13 record. Hardly a nobody. Regards, Joe Gonsowski

Archive

11-10-2005, 09:29 AM

Posted By: identify7It seems to me that the American Association's Browns championship was played up by the makers of n172s. Maybe the makers of n28 + 29s chose to play up the National League. As has been mentioned, Getzein was the top pitcher for the NL champion Wolverines, and Bennett was his battery mate. The second place Quakers were a running team, and the stolen base statistic had just begun being recorded the previous year. Fogarty with over 100 steals, and Mulvey (and others) must have made it difficult for opposing pitchers. The Beaneaters fielded a pair of sluggers in first baseman John Morrill and King Kelly which comprised a strong one-two punch. And so on ... Just speculation, but maybe this sort of thinking was behind the player selections for these sets.