Archive
03-01-2009, 07:22 PM
Posted By: <b>Bill Todd</b><p>Bill C. brought up a good point in the Ramly/American Caramel thread. The only Washington player in any of the E-92 through E-105 major league sets is Schaefer--and he's only in -92, -101, -102, and -105. That fact has puzzled me for a long time. My guess is that Schaefer is in the sets at all because he was such a fan favorite in Detroit; he was traded to Washington on August 13, 1909 along with Red Killifer for Jim Delahanty. <br><br>For a long time I wondered why no Johnson, but through the end of the 1909 season he was only 32-48. It wasn't until 1910 that he began going strong, 25-17 that year. (Which, now that I think about it, makes the T204 Johnson somewhat of a puzzle as well. Why him? Washington is grossly over-represented in the T204s, with 12 players out of only 121 in the whole set. But I digress.)<br><br>Other teams have poor representation in these E sets, too. <br><br>Braves: no -93, -94, -95, -96, -98, or -102<br>Browns: no -93 to -98 or -101 to -103<br>White Sox: no -93, -95, -96, -97, or -103<br><br>Random thoughts:<br>Why no Phillies in the E-95 Philadelphia Caramel set?<br>Why no Braves in the E-94 set? (George Close was in Cambridge, Mass.)<br>If E-92s, -101s, and -102s are truly 1909 issues, they must have been released late in 1909; Schaefer is shown with Washington, but he began the season with 87 games in Detroit.<br><br>Bill T.