Year with most HOFers Playing?
 

A question I've pondered that I don't know if anyone has a guess as to the answer: What baseball season had the most players (not including managers) that would go on to be in the Hall of Fame?

One of the ramifications of that question that I'm curious about is, if there was more interest in baseball in general and cards in specific during those seasons.

I think 1921 had 30 future HOFers.

Those numbers are provided in Bill James book "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame".

Between the years 1925 and 1933 between 50 and 55 HOFers played each year. The most was 55 in 1928. James also lists the % of total At Bats that were by Hall of Famers for each year. The most was a whopping 24% in 1929. Typically this number has been around 10% since WW2.

Edited to add: According to James there were 34 would be HOFers playing in 1921.

55! That means that each team on average had about 3.5 HOFers! Going to a game, between the two teams, you'd see 7 future HOFers.

If you wouldn't mind - what are the numbers for some of the most card heavy times - say 1887, 1910 and 1933?

Thanks very much for the information.

1974
 

In recent years, it always seemed to me like the 1975 set had just an unreal number of HOF players. Never bothered to count...but I have to think that 1974 or 1975 has to be up there for the most over the last half century.

Tom C

70 and 72 Topps have 38 Hall of famers as players (I think), plus another dozen or so cards of managers/coaches who are in now or will likely go (Blyleven, Oliva, Santo, Torre, Larussa, Schoendienst, Ted Williams, Durocher, et al) plus Rose.

Also they have numerous all star cards, W.S. highlight cards, League Leaders, in action, etc.... bringing the total of Hall of Fame cards in 1972 especially close to 70.

Mr. James wrote one fine book, there. He retitled it after it didn't sell well under the original title. ANYONE who's opining about who should or shouldn't be in the Hall should first read that book; and keep their yap shut until they do.

Mr. James mentions some reasons why there are a disproportionate number of HOFers from certain times.

Here's a ticket stub I have, my oldest professional stub. It's for a double header in Philadelphia on September 15th, 1928. The Cardinals took two from the Phillies that day.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j1...ticketstub.jpg

One thing I like about the stub is that a fellow watching those games would have seen 7 future HOFers on the field, 6 for the Cardinals, and 1 for the Phillies. St. Louis had Alexander, Bottomley, Frisch, Hafey, Haines, and Maranville. The Phillies had Chuck Klein.

I have a newspaper writeup of the games that has been retyped...

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j1...928dhstory.jpg

And I had worked on the box scores, years ago, but I grew frustrated with trying to line up the columns. Maybe one day I'll try again.


So the 3.5 HOFers per team were on the field that day. Frisch's presence on HOF committee's may well have gotten a few of his friends into the Hall who might have otherwise not made it. In 1928, with the Cardinals bringing 6 future HOFers to town, it seems there'd be 7 or more HOFers present no matter who they played. Surely the other 7 NL teams had at least one future HOFer.

Read Mr. James' book. And then read his historical abstract.


Four bits to see 18 innings of baseball with 7 HOFers... that sounds like a deal. And I'll bet the beer was affordable, then.

Considering that game took place during prohibition anyone drinking beer would have ended up in jail.

That would be a tough choice... beer or baseball. Hmmmm....

Seems a little harsh, doesn't it Frank? No one is allowed to offer an opinion until they read that specific book?

James's book, originally titled "The Politics of Glory" is a must read for its information about the institutional history of the Hall of Fame as well as explanations and discussions of who should be in and who should not. Very interesting reading. My favorite line is in the first chapter. "Alexander Cleland, an employee of Cooperstown's wealthiest patron had an idea...He knew that the village...held some vague claim to being the birthplace of baseball. His idea was that Cooperstown...could assemble a collection of baseball artifacts which might draw hundreds of visitors a year." HUNDREDS OF VISITORS. LOL

Jim VB, I'm just a harsh fella... sorry if that offends you. I had no intent to offend.

Have you read the book? Anything wrong with an opinion being founded in a bit of knowledge and education? Probably not necessary, after all, opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one. But I think those opinions that are founded in knowledge and information are more worthy of consideration.

Can't harshness be correct?

I figure you've not read the book. And it is such a good book. I found that I actually understood the National Baseball Museum, what it is and how it got that way, after reading the book. Before that, I just thought that the Hall of Fame was just an honor bestowed upon the greatest players of our national pastime. Now, with the enlightened perspective of having read Mr. James' book, I can now see that my prior opinion was faulty. So what about you reading the book, then opining as to my harshness?

And golly, what about "neat old ticket stub, Frank." That would have been less harsh than a quote with a disagreement.

It is a very good book. I bought the initial version and then bought the revised version when it came out a few years later. Both were excellent and thought-provoking.

"I will be harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice."

I wasn't "offended." And I don't believe I said I was. I do believe that taking a point of view that says no one is allowed to voice an opinion, unless they read one specific book is harsh. I believe that information used to form an opinion should come from multiple sources, not just one book, regardless of how good said book may be. Telling people to "keep their yap shut" seems over the top. (As a side note, no one in this thread had opined on who should, or shouldn't be, in the HOF.)


Neat ticket stub, Frank!

Read the book, and consider foregoing quoting, it wastes space. There was a "should" in what I said, in what you quoted. The other guys have read the book. Pick a fight in every playground.


And thank you, glad you like the 1928 stub; I posted it since they were speaking of 1928 being the year for HOFers.

If one doesn't voice his opinion, how can anyone tell him how uninformed he is?

It's just assumed.

Frank, Be it Politics, Religion, or Baseball, there's nothing scarier than a man who bases his opinion on one book. I have read the book and I'd bet my life Mr. James would agree with my first sentence.

I understand what you said, there, Bob, but not why. My opinion isn't based on one book.

I'm not saying read that one book and then you're set, I'm saying that you need to read THAT book before offering an opinion. I'm all for reading more besides that one book. Bunches of books. I'm a bibliophile, wish there were more.

If someone reads that book then why 1928 is the year with HOFers playing becomes obvious.

Form an opinion without having read the book. Once you have that opinion, I doubt that you'd hold onto it, unchanged, if you did read either book.

I'm reading a pretty dry, slow going book about Human Accomplishment, by some guy named Murray, I think he is or was a Libertarian. I'll be glad when I'm done with it, and I don't really recommend it, but I figure some stuff is in there I'll want to know. I like knowing stuff, and I well understand that some folks don't.

I suspect I'll die, sandwiched in between books... those in stacks under the bed, and those stacked in the attic, that will come crashing down through my bedroom ceiling.

I'm with Kenny, I bought the first one, and then the second one, too. Again, I had an opinion about the Hall before I read what Mr. James wrote. I think my understanding and opinion is better having read what he wrote. I'll read more about the Hall, given more time. I just think anyone who wants to know instead of just shoot off would be better off if they read The Politics of Glory.

Powerful quote, Peter.

the rest of the quote
 

" I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- and I will be heard."

Assume you know it, Frank.

Edit to add On this one I agree with Kenny and Frank, James' books on the Hall really are essential reading for those interested in the debate on who is in and who is out.

One of my favorites: "Charity looks at the need and not at the cause."

Rob, I like the first quote.

Peter, I didn't recognize the second one, you must be a Garrison scholar.

He had a lot of great lines. Here is another:

Enslave the liberty of but one human being and the liberties of the world are put in peril.