Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war

[BobC]

Of all the questions regarding different sets and years and what are or aren't rookie cards according to the Beckett thinking, Ted Z already pointed out one of the most egregious errors with Phil Rizzuto's 1941 Double Play card being completely ignored as his true rookie card, in favor of it being his '48 Bowman card. But it isn't just Rizzuto, HOFers Pee Wee Reese, Lou Boudreau, Luke Appling, and Bobby Doerr are also in the '41 Double Play set, yet all of their rookie cards are supposedly from the '49 Bowman set. I've never heard of the Double Play set referred to or considered a non-major or just a regional set or issue, but even if you have some people still trying to make such an argument, then explain to me how they get away with the same ridiculous and unreasonable logic in regards to the Playball sets? The Play Ball sets exactly match the standards and criteria established by Topps and Bowman in later years for what constitues a major set. The Play Ball sets included all of the major league teams, they weren't just limited to a small regional area, they were actual cards sold in packs, they were put out each year with a new issue using unique images, and they were issued over multiple, cosecutive years, 1939, 1940, and 1941. (The only reason they stopped at three years was because of the onset of WWII.) And yet the Play Ball sets (at least according to Beckett thinking) don't qualify to include anyone's rookie card?

So even if you ignore those aforementioned HOFers in the Double Play set, what about the Pee Wee Reese, Dom Dimaggio, and Bobby Doerr (and I may be forgetting some others) cards in the '41 Play Ball set then? How are those not their rookie cards instead of ones from the '49 Bowman set?

And here's a hypothetical question to show how stupid the Beckett definition of what constitutes a set from which you can recognize a rookie card is. Babe Ruth actually started in the majors playing a few games with the Red Sox in 1914, and ended his playing career in a partial season with the Boston Braves in 1935. A total of 22 different seasons he played in, but according to Beckett thinking, no rookie card till his 20th season in 1933 with his Goudey cards. (Just reading that last statement out loud makes it sound even dumber and more absurd than it is.) So what if Ruth only played 19 seasons in the majors and retired after the end of the '32 season, and never got into the Goudey set? He'd have still played an extremely long and legendary career, but according to Beckett he never would have had a rookie card then!!!!!!! (Or would they have designated it one of those cards he's on in the '62 Topps set. Yuck!)