Best of the Splendid Splinter

[jsfriedm]

A question on Ted Williams: what do people here think is his best card? Normally the rookie gets pride of place, but the 1939 Play Ball is not the most beloved set by most, and so it's not surprising that his rookie card doesn't command the same premium compared to his other cards that cards like Mays' 1951 Bowman or Aaron's 1954 Topps do. So what do people think is actually his best card? I'd go for either the 1941 Play Ball (especially since it's the .406 year), or the 1949 Leaf. Thoughts?

[Rich Falvo]

I love his 54 Bowman.

[Leon]

Since I am a mainly a pre war collector, I still like his rookie.

From the BST, a little over 5 yrs ago...

[Casey2296]

54 Wilson Franks

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

54 Wilson Franks

+1

[daves_resale_shop]

A nicely centered 1939 pb will do it for me

[Exhibitman]

1955 has always been my favorite card



But I also like some of the 1959 Fleer cards too



This 1957 TI doesn't suck, either

[brianp-beme]

I like a lot of Ted's cards, and most of those mentioned. I also like the 1957 Topps of older Ted.

Brian (not my Splinter)

[Fred]

Simple sepia 1940 Play Ball of a young splinter

It's still so mind boggling to think of the career numbers he may have put up if he had those (3) prime years (ages 23-26) and basically two other full seasons (age 33 and 34) to play. Even with those missing years Teddy Ballgame still put up some incredible numbers.

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by Fred

Simple sepia 1940 Play Ball of a young splinter

It's still so mind boggling to think of the career numbers he may have put up if he had those (3) prime years (ages 23-26) and basically two other full seasons (age 33 and 34) to play. Even with those missing years Teddy Ballgame still put up some incredible numbers.

Even without the years in the military, his numbers are actually better than people realize. Sacrifice flies aren't counted as at-bats - except that they were between 1931-1954. So, under the rules that Cobb and Hornsby hit .400 with, Ted Williams' average in 1941 would have been something like .419. His career .344 is actually probably at least .350 in comparison to Cobb's .366 and Hornsby's .358.

[oldjudge]

.

[padremurph]

I like the Wilson Franks and the 54B the best. Still need to pick up a Wilson Franks

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

Even without the years in the military, his numbers are actually better than people realize. Sacrifice flies aren't counted as at-bats - except that they were between 1931-1954. So, under the rules that Cobb and Hornsby hit .400 with, Ted Williams' average in 1941 would have been something like .419. His career .344 is actually probably at least .350 in comparison to Cobb's .366 and Hornsby's .358.

The changes around the sacrifice fly rules make for an interesting discussion. Thank you for bringing them up.

SABR published an article on the subject in 2021. In the article, it states that "In 1941, Ted Williams batted a lusty .406 (185 H in 456 AB), but had his eight RBI flyouts not been counted as at-bats, his batting average would have been .413."

It also states that "Twice the “no Sac-Fly” rule precluded a player from winning the esteemed Triple Crown of batting."

The first was Jimmie Foxx, who could have won the batting crown and therefore the triple crown in 1932 if the the sacrifice fly rule that has been in operation from 1954 to the present (where batters who hit RBI flyouts are credited with a sac fly, and an RBI flyout is not charged as an at bat, just as a sacrifice bunt is not charged as an at-bat) were in effect. This would have given Foxx back-to-back triple crowns.

Similarly, Ted Williams could have won the batting title in 1949, which would have given Ted his 3rd Triple Crown.

[frankbmd]

I'm a stickler when it comes to condition in my collection. Rarity is always a secondary factor. I had to compromise though on condition when i found this 1 of 1 (that means rare) 1955 Topps Williams with a unique Preston Ward border.

1955 Williams.jpg

Finding a splintered Splendid Splinter made my day and led to the creation of my complete 1955 Topps Mutant Set.

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

The changes around the sacrifice fly rules make for an interesting discussion. Thank you for bringing them up.

SABR published an article on the subject in 2021. In the article, it states that "In 1941, Ted Williams batted a lusty .406 (185 H in 456 AB), but had his eight RBI flyouts not been counted as at-bats, his batting average would have been .413."

It also states that "Twice the “no Sac-Fly” rule precluded a player from winning the esteemed Triple Crown of batting."

The first was Jimmie Foxx, who could have won the batting crown and therefore the triple crown in 1932 if the the sacrifice fly rule that has been in operation from 1954 to the present (where batters who hit RBI flyouts are credited with a sac fly, and an RBI flyout is not charged as an at bat, just as a sacrifice bunt is not charged as an at-bat) were in effect. This would have given Foxx back-to-back triple crowns.

Similarly, Ted Williams could have won the batting title in 1949, which would have given Ted his 3rd Triple Crown.

Not to mention that, by current standards, he would have qualified for, and won, the 1954 batting title too. Here's my copy of what I now think is my favorite Ted (I'm a color and registration guy, less so a centering guy):

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Rich Falvo

I love his 54 Bowman.

+1. Classic card

My only contribution to the thread: a 1948 team signed, Minneapolis Minners team photo with a pre-rookie Ted.

[JollyElm]

I love the rarity of this one...

1959fleer68tedsigns.jpg

[Rad_Hazard]

I'm still in the camp that likes his rookie the best. Great pic and I love the black and white.

If I had to pick a #2 it would likely be 50 or 51 Bowman. One can only dream of what his 52 Bowman would have looked like (that is my favorite post-war design).

[Tyruscobb]

Give me the 1948(9) Leaf card all day.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I love the rarity of this one...

Attachment 555011

Not really rare. Tougher than any other card in the set sure but it being classified as rare, no way.

[bobsbbcards]

54 Wilson for me.