PDA

View Full Version : Niche Set Collecting, an example


Archive
10-07-2006, 12:32 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I was just looking at Pete Alexander's pitching record, and I noticed <br />that when he was about done, he hung on for a year with the Phillies <br />(where he went 0-3 with a 9.14 ERA) That's "about done".<br /><br />But this is one of the best pitchers ever seen. What more fitting a way to end your career <br />(if you are one of the greats) than to go out with the worst pitching staff in the <br />history of baseball?<br /><br />Is that who the 1930 Phillies were? Yes. 6.71 team ERA. If I am mistaken, <br />then Ol' Pete simply went out with the worst thru 1930, but I should have heard <br />of a pitching staff worse than that crew.<br /><br />Now this is collecting, so other than a team card, you can collect the individual player cards <br />.... which makes the project far more excrusiatingly painful. Of course you can't <br />get each of the perpetrators of this crime, but you can round up <br />many of the key criminals. Of course Ol Pete is the centerpiece of this niche. <br />But it could also include the following examples:<br /><br />1930 Phillies Pitching Staff<br /><br />Ray Benge - <br />Phil Collins <br />Les Sweetland <br /> Claude Willoughby <br /> Hal Elliott <br />Harry Smythe <br />Hap Collard <br />Snipe Hansen <br />Chet Nichols <br /> Buz Phillips <br /> Lou Koupal <br />John Milligan <br /> Pete Alexander <br /> By Speece<br /><br />Im sorry, I lost the examples. But they chiefly included cards from 33 Goudey, '32 Zeenut with one from Diamond Match Book and another from Centinnel Flour. Several of which had other options.<br /><br />Waddayathink? Can you collect this kinda stuff? Want more examples?<br /><br /><br />Edited to add:<br /><br />It is an excuse to pick up a few nuts, a matchbook, and who knows what a centinnel flour really is?<br />

Archive
10-07-2006, 12:44 PM
Posted By: <b>S Gross</b><p>Unlimited possibilities.<br />Here's a sub-set of a sub-set: T210 ---&gt; T210-1 ---&gt; T210-1-Savannah<br /><br /><img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a296/mybuddyinc/t210%20-%201%20Savannah/xcomp.jpg"><br /><br />Not a great image (first try at a photoshop collage). Twelve actual Sav. players, but I also include Schulze, Macon since he is waering a Sav. sweater.

Archive
10-07-2006, 12:57 PM
Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>except for that chip in the right border. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
10-07-2006, 01:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Zach Rice</b><p>I love subsets, they give you a certain challenge within a set. I'm currently collecting T209-2 Greenville players and Wilmington players. Once I finish those two teams, i'll move onto another and slowly collect the set. The same goes for the T210 set. I'm 30 cards into the second series and after I finish that, i'll move onto another. Here are two good examples from each sub-set:<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m84/mzm55cards/t209flowers.jpg"> <img src="http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m84/mzm55cards/toner.jpg">

Archive
10-07-2006, 05:24 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Rey</b><p>Gil --<br /><br />While that was a bad staff -- it wasn't the worst, though it's certainly in the running...<br /><br />The worst staffs ever?<br /><br />The 1911 Boston Rustlers -- Cy Young's last team. Team ERA for the season was 5.08 in a league where the league average for the season was 3.39. The Rustlers' team ERA was 49 percent worse than the league avg. That team went 44-107.<br /><br />By comparison, the 1930 Philadelphia NL team was "only" 35 percent above the league average: 6.71 team ERA vs. 4.97 league avg. ERA. Plus, that team played in the Baker Bowl -- a hell for pitchers.<br /><br />The Rustlers also had some park issues, as the South End Grounds were also a pitcher's nightmare.<br /><br />Taking park factors into account, I'm pretty sure the actual worst staff of all time was that of the 1915 Philadelphia Athletics -- formed after a Connie Mack fire sale, the average age of that staff was 22... The '15 A's team ERA doesn't look that bad, at 4.29, but when you figure in that the league average ERA was 2.93, you see the big gap -- a 46 percent gap. The A's played in a neutral hitting park that year so their "bad-ness" was all on their young arms. The end result was a 43-109 record.<br /><br />Other bad staffs, equal to or worse than 1930 Phils (35 percent worse than lg. ave. ERA):<br /><br />1955 KC A's -- 5.35 ERA in a 3.96 avg ERA league = 35 percent worse than lg.<br />1954 Phl A's -- 5.18 ERA in 3.72 avg ERA lg. = 39 percent worse than lg.<br />1919 Phils -- 4.14 ERA in a 2.91 avg ERA lg = 42 percent worse than lg.<br />1916 Phl A's -- 3.92 ERA in 2.82 ERA lg = 39 percent worse than lg.<br />1907 Boston NL -- 3.33 ERA in 2.46 ERA lg = 35 percent worse than lg.<br />1904 WSH -- 3.62 ERA in 2.60 ERA lg = 39 percent worse than lg.<br /><br />Man, they've seen a lot of bad pitching in Philadelphia.<br /><br />As you can see, even a staff with a 3.33 ERA can be bad, given the context...

Archive
10-07-2006, 05:34 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I love this!<br /><br />So Dave, you agree then that numerically the 1930 Phillies have the worst team average ERA ever. Correct?<br /><br />And Dave, although they may have seen a lot of bad pitching in Philadelphia, that City is the only one which can boast of two Triple Crown Winners in the same year!<br /><br />Foxx and Klein<br /><br />Historically a single Triple Crown winner is rare.

Archive
10-07-2006, 06:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Rey</b><p>It is a fact that the 1930 Phils have, purely numerically, the worst team ERA of all time -- no surprise in that the 1930 season featured the highest league ERAs of all time...<br /><br />The double triple crown thing is cool, but Klein's is kinda bogus, for the same reason the 1930s Phils bad ERA is kinda bogus -- the Baker Bowl. Put Klein in Shibe Park, where Foxx played in '33 and his numbers would've been about 15 percent lower...<br /><br />Foxx's triple crown is totally legit -- Shibe Park was about the most park-effect neutral ballpark in baseball history.<br /><br />In the case of the Phillies -- those years in the Baker Bowl were horrible for their franchise, as people didn't understand the effect the bandbox was having on the performance of the team.<br /><br />It was the Coors Field of the 20s and 30s -- but because of dimensions, not altitude... It was only 280 feet to the right field fence...

Archive
10-07-2006, 10:39 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Dave: I do not know whether you know anything about me, but let me assure you that I certainly can appreciate an individual who requires several paragraphs to say "yes".<br /><br />Be this as it may be, Dave, I have a question related to a similar subject, as outlined below. <br /><br />Here it is:<br /><br />The establishment of a team record for HRs in 1884, which remained unsurpassed until 1927. As well as an individual record which almost spanned that time frame.<br /><br />Since you feel free to employ correction factors to accomplishments, please be advised that any challenge to this occurance will be met with potential opposing analysis. And park correction factors are relatively well supported.<br /><br />The player is Williamson, and the team is the White Stockings.<br /><br />Wanna play?

Archive
10-08-2006, 12:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>My niche set is based on my favorite book, "The Glory of Their Times" by Lawrence Ritter. It contains first hand accounts of 26 players from the early 20th Century:<br /><br /><a href= "http://www.psacard.com/set_registry/display_cards.chtml?rsetid=60547&alltime=yes&rank=1&tied=0&requesttimeout=9999">The Glory of Their Times</a><br><br>Frank

Archive
10-08-2006, 03:48 PM
Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Gil,<br /><br />Fun topic-- You picked an extremely tough example of a niche set-- I've got these cards from the guys on the staff, but after these five I think it quickly becomes impossible. Did any of those other bozos even have cards?<br /><br />Of course you could go from here to try to collect all the players on the 1930 team-- a fascinating group for a last-place club, including Klein, O'Doul, and a bunch of other good hitters.<br /><br />Benge, Ray33Goudey, 34Goudey, R318<br />Collins, Phil33Goudey, U1 Matchbook, R305 Tattoo Orbit<br />Sweetland, Les31 Cubs team set<br />Willoughby, Claude32Zeenut, R316 Kashin<br />Alexander, GroverM101-4, M101-5, W572, 1921 Exhibits<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Tim

Archive
10-08-2006, 04:01 PM
Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Spud Davis 33Goudey, 39Play Ball, R314, U1 Matchbook, S&S Game, U3 Matchbook <br /><br />Don Hurst 34Goudey, E285 Rittenhouse, R316 <br /><br />Fresco Thompson 33Goudey, R316, W560 <br /><br />Pinky Whitney 39Play Ball, R313, R316, 1936 Exhibit, U1 <br /><br />Tommy Thevenow 33 Goudey, U2 Matchbook <br /><br />Lefty O'Doul 33 Goudey, W553, R316, R315 <br /> <br />Chuck Klein 33-34 Goudey, 1935 Goudey, 1939, 1941 Play Ball, R316, R314, U3, W554, 35Exh, 1927-29 Postcard Exhibit, R313unc <br /><br />Bernie Friberg 1933 Goudey <br /><br />Fred Brickell 1933 Goudey, 1935 Goudey<br /> <br />Harry McCurdy 1933 Goudey, 1928 Exhibit<br /><br />Cy Williams 1921exh, 1927-29 Postcard Exh, E121, W572, M101-4, M101-5, E135 <br /><br />I would still need five players:<br />Tony Rensa <br />Tripp Sigman <br />Denny Sothern <br />Jim Spotts <br />Monk Sherlock

Archive
10-08-2006, 04:32 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>The only player I show a card for on your last 5 is Sherlock. Then again, I don't include matchbooks and anything larger than a postcard.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive
10-08-2006, 06:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>It seems that cards get a bit thin for those last five.<br />I've got a Jack Sherlock listed on Zeenuts of the period, but Im not sure that he is John (Monk) Sherlock.<br /><br />Then Rensa appears on the '34 Diamond Matchbook #151. And a card exists for Denny Sothern, but it is the '90 Target Dodger series #1077.<br /><br />And the pitchers work out to be:<br />Lou Koupal = '37 Zeenuts #78<br />Harry Smythe = '36 WWG #79<br />Earl (Hap) Collard = '32 Zeenut #81<br />Roy (Snipe) Hansen = '35 Diamond Matchbook #68<br />By Speece = '43, '44, '45 Centennial Flour<br /><br />I have no idea what this last set is, nor why they show this player 13 years after his MLB career ended.

Archive
10-08-2006, 06:29 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Tim- didn't the 1930 Phillies have the highest team batting average in baseball history? I seem to remember that.

Archive
10-08-2006, 06:51 PM
Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>That T210 Wells above was chipped by me earlier in the year while I was attempting to break it out of a slab. <br />The screwdriver tip slipped and grabbed the edge. That card has done more traveling than me this year. I sold it to Brian shortly after I bought it at the Cranston, RI Show. I learned my lesson on keeping the slabs flat while splitting them so that the card can't shift.<br /><br /><br />Patrick

Archive
10-08-2006, 09:12 PM
Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Gil,<br /><br />Great! I'll look for those Zeenuts and matchbooks-- you've got me interested now--<br /><br />Tim

Archive
10-08-2006, 09:32 PM
Posted By: <b>ItsOnlyGil</b><p>That's great Tim! Please post a link, if you can, when you are done with it (or as done as you can reasonably get).

Archive
10-09-2006, 12:46 PM
Posted By: <b>S Gross</b><p>....... Oh, Well(s) ............. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
10-09-2006, 02:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>Patrick, I got the Wells card from Brian and Scott got it from me. One of you two must have put the chip back on the card because when I put it in a holder to send to Scott the chip came off. I felt so bad. I thought I had done it.

Archive
10-12-2006, 05:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Rey</b><p>Gil --<br /><br />Sorry took me a few days to answer your query -- my internet connection was down...<br /><br />I assume you are referring to Ned Wiliamson's HR "record" -- which was a complete travesty, as the rules were changed at the Chicago team's Lake Front Park to allow anything over the 200-foot right field boundary to count as a homer -- when it had in the past and the next year been considered a double.<br /><br />The 27 home run total was a complete aberration due to the ball park -- that is further proved by the same season totals of Anson, Pfeffer and Dalrymple, who all hit 20+ homers that year, also.<br /><br />The other teams complained all season about the ball park, which became known for "cheap" hits -- so the effect the park was having on games and stats was even completely evident at that time, not just through later historical examination.<br /><br />I can't remember the exact total, but I think Williamson hit like all but 5 of his 64 career home runs in his home ball parks.<br /><br />He was a patient hitter with some pop who was, by most accounts, an excellent defensive player. His exploitation of the Lake Front Park configuration and rules, while smart baseball, give him a bit of historical sheen that he really doesn't deserve, IMHO...

Archive
10-12-2006, 06:51 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>While there is no doubt in my mind that shorter fences will yield an increase in HRs, I also note that ballpark dimensions providing fence distances under 300' is hardly unprecedented. It is interesting to me to note that the previous year a hit over that fence was counted as a double. And with that rule, Williamson led the league in doubles with 49, which also set the single season record.<br /><br />Of course the foregoing appears to substantiate your opinion that the home run records established by the 1884 Chicago team should somehow be invalidated, I do not agree that a ballplayer adjusting to his environment should be punished for his capability.<br /><br />Heck, I remember Wally Moon learning to slice homeruns over the short screen (251 feet) in left field in the Dodgers LA Coliseum. Similarly, Ross Barnes’ ability to slice legal bunts into foul territory to increase this sluggers average, often over .400, should not be invalidated; anymore than the records of spitball hurlers or anyone else who adjusts to the rules and situations of the time.<br /><br />I realize that not everyone agrees with this viewpoint, much like you recognize that not everyone ascribes to a more statistically leveraged position. I wonder how long baseball will continue to support the less statistically based analysis.<br /><br />I believe that the decisions in this will be made by the fans. For example, Matt Kilroy appears to quietly have been stripped of his record strikeouts in a season (513) by the likes of Feller, Kofax, Ryan, etc. but really by the fans. Barnes, Moon, Williamson et. al. are just not holders of marks which are important to current fans, so they appear safe. Are there any more records which are in danger of being stripped by current thinking, I wonder.<br />

Archive
10-13-2006, 12:03 AM
Posted By: <b>Dave Rey</b><p>Gil --<br /><br />I'm not suggesting players should be stripped of their records for exploiting advantageous ball park or rule circumstances, I just attempt to put their accomplishments into proper context.<br /><br />Williamson no doubt had some power, as the doubles totals from the year before show, but he was not a primordial Babe Ruth.<br /><br />Sandy Koufax is an example of a player that benefitted greatly from his ball park (the Mt. Everest of pitching mounds) and the strike zone rules of the mid-1960s, but I would never suggest we take wins or strikeouts away from his career totals. But we should judge the greatness of his accomplishments through the lens of context.<br /><br />Even through that lens, he was a wonderful, upper-tier HOF pitcher -- if you give him slack for retiring young... which I am willing to do.<br /><br />Sometimes the obviousness of the circumstance is such that it is clear that the statistics generated by those exploiting said circumstances are bogus. The Williamson and Chicago home run "records" of that season are exactly that sort of situation. The accounts of the games during the time when the "record" was being set routinely laments the cheap hits and runs the 200-foot rightfield boundary and the switch from a double to a homer for clearing that boundary allowed and encouraged.<br /><br />And while it may seem "smart" to exploit a ball park or rule, it rarely pays off in the W-L column... Those 1884 White Stockings only managed to tie for fourth in an eight-team league... That's usually because generally there are smart guys playing for all the teams.<br /><br />A strange phenomenon of the 1880s, as recounted by Bill James, is that almost every player hit considerably more HRs at home than on the road during that decade, suggesting familiarity with ball park and grounds quirks, and figuring out how to best exploit them, played a big part in that decade's strategy...<br /><br />Another caveat to the 1884 Chicago HR season is that the rules governing pitching were so very different from the modern rules -- that, more than the silliness of the "gaming" of the ball park by the White Stockings, is a better argument for disregarding, not just the Williamson HR "record," but most of the pitching records of the time, as well.

Archive
10-13-2006, 04:12 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Its all baseball. None of it should be ignored, it all is to be enjoyed, in part from a historical perspective,imho. Heck, should Hornsby and his accomplishments be ignored? Wait, you didn't say "ignored", you said "disregarded". Perhaps there is a subtle difference there, but I don't see it. Ruth played during an era of an enlightened ball, with no spitballers. What fan will buy into disregarding what he did?<br /><br />Further, I believe that the '98 crowd also played during a brief era of a similarly enlightened ball. I do not accept that it was the juice in the players as much as the juice in the ball. Some think this period should be disregarded. Well, some thought 1961 also should have been disregarded. The homerun, you see, if baseball's most treasured commodity. And it belongs, by Imperial Edict, to Ruth alone.<br /><br />There is always a rational in support of the fact that everyone else's single season homeruns shouldn't count. It took the steady faultless glamorless play of Aaron to capture the acceptance of his achievement. And at that, it was still a battle.<br /><br />The White Stockings did set both season team HR records. In 1877 following a season where they were first in both batting and slugging, they set the all time record for fewest Homeruns in a season with zero (some UA teams equalled that record, but their history was just a few games before being disbanded).<br /><br />I wonder how many of Williamson's homeruns barely travelled the required 200'. And how many would have made it out of the 251 ft. barrier of the LA Coliseum - or some other small park. Interesting subject Dave.<br /><br />I am assembling cards representing the players on this team (which includes the rookie card of Clarkson - who contributed 3 HRs to this effort). Some of the cards are going to be pretty costly. The ones I have so far (6 of 'em) are great! Im loving this niche. And many others.

Archive
10-13-2006, 05:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Rey</b><p>I stand by my statement that pitching and hitting records compiled before the mound was moved to 60 feet should be disregarded in context and relationship to modern baseball.<br /><br />Certainly not ignored or erased, but disregarded in the conversation about "the most" or "the least" of any sort of batting or hitting record.<br /><br />Once the pitching rules became, for all intents and purposes, standardized -- aside from the banning or allowing certain pitches or variations of the strikezone or mound heighth -- then all bets are back on as far as the record book goes.<br /><br />Because baseball is recorded in statistics, we can pretty handily do contextual comparisons. When the context is disrupted by easily observed artificial absurdity, like the Lake Front Park home run binge, then we should disregard the validity of records created in that specific context.<br /><br />I love 19th Century baseball history more than most folks -- so I'm in no way advocating that we disregard it or any other portion of baseball history, Gil. I do advocate looking at history in context so we can better understand it.<br /><br />As an example, we consider Andrew Carnegie one of the richest men in American history. His fortune was about $400 million, I believe, which wouldn't even make him the richest man in most major American cities today.<br /><br />But, in the context of his time, he was super-wealthy.<br /><br />In the context of his time, Tris Speaker was a tremendous power hitter, but his homerun totals, when looked at in the context we are used to today, are pedestrian.<br /><br />It's all about context.

Archive
10-13-2006, 08:00 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Dave, although I have an insightful, witty and well thought out rebuttal for your statements, I recognize that I am dealing with an individual who possesses a thickness about the cranial area that rivals mine. And to effectively deal in this context, requires a change in venue to a site which includes beer.<br /><br />I look foward to that potential opportunity.<br /><br />Gil