Moonlight Graham

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by z28jd

One strange thing about Moonlight Graham that most people don't know because of the movie (and because of his Baseball-Reference page) is that he actually played two innings on defense, not one.

I wonder if his correct stats were known back then if he would have actually been the player chosen. It may have been Cy Neighbors used instead, as he actually did only play one inning in the outfield without getting a chance to bat. Neighbors actually got left out of some boxscores from his only game.

Many aspects of the movie (preumably the book) that were totally wrong . . . really disheartening. Wasnt last game of the season. Didn't retire from baseball after the game. Etc. Etc. Why I have never watched the famous Gehrig or Ruth movies. When film people start making shit up to make it more "dramatic" I ask for my check.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Many aspects of the movie (preumably the book) that were totally wrong . . . really disheartening. Wasnt last game of the season. Didn't retire from baseball after the game. Etc. Etc. Why I have never watched the famous Gehrig or Ruth movies. When film people start making shit up to make it more "dramatic" I ask for my check.

I think some of the errors were just due to the available research at the time, though I don't know why the year he played was changed other than so he knew who the players were on the field...though I'm sure everyone here rolls their eyes when he knows who Gil Hodges is.

I think the one inning part really stands out because it seems important to the story. That's why it makes me wonder if it was known back then that he actually played two innings, would he still be the player they used? Let's face it, it wasn't easy to fact check the now known errors back when the movie came out. You had to go along with it.

I didn't realize until somewhat recently that he was actually a lefty hitter, even though I've been on his Baseball-Reference page countless times before noticing it.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Further proving the point that people continue to shell out large amounts of money for the memorabilia of a real person based on the collective love of a mostly contrived book and movie character. I hope people can realize that they're so enamored because of the talents of Burt Lancaster and Frank Whaley, along with Bill Kinsella. This Moonlight Graham love really has nothing to do with the real man who took care of school kids in Chisholm. The name's the same, but so much diverges from that point. I think it's preposterous, but there's no right or wrong way to consider the matter, I suppose.

Conversely, it makes perfect sense to me that people pay high amounts for anything to do with Eddie Gaedel. Yeah, he wasn't really an MLB player, but wait--he really was, and there's a contract to prove it! Yes, a publicity stunt, but all sealed up in a then-legal manner! Gaedel did take an actual at bat in a Major League game. What happened, happened. Those are the facts; his collectability derives from 100% true events. Funny to consider the outcome if Veeck hadn't signed him to a player contract. Say this stunt had happened in between a double header. Cain still pitched to Gaedel, Swift and Hurley still behind the plate. Everything was the same aside from Gaedel actually stepping into a game. He'd have been nearly completely forgotten about; barely a footnote. Very few people would have had any interest in his memorabilia which would carry extremely reduced price tags regardless of rarity.

Of course, unproven and sometimes laughably false legends can serve to inflate collectability and value of certain people's memorabilia. Usually, these tales are add-ons to proven events which are what truly brought the celebrity their fame. Until Bill Kinsella came along needing a groovy name for his book character, Archibald Graham languished in the near-total obscurity that some might say is deserving of such a modest baseball career. While a decent human being, the real Graham contributed absolutely nothing to drive the value and interest in his memorabilia to another stratosphere. Flip through your baseball encyclopedia; there's Graham after Graham after Graham. Perhaps not the same surname or stats, but a veritable ton of players with similarly minuscule MLB careers. Alas, Kinsella's index finger landed on Graham, and the rest is (one kind of) history.

The Delorean comparison as noted earlier has merit to a point, but then there are definitely differences. Yes, it's a hunk of junk, but the design was so representative of the era in which it was created. Let's also not forget its infamy due to the cocaine smuggling! It would still have ended up eliciting nostalgia for many people even if it was never featured in an iconic movie. Their value wouldn't be the same, but there would still be lots of interest and strong collectability as an anomalous, aesthetically pleasing piece of the 1980's.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Many aspects of the movie (preumably the book) that were totally wrong . . . really disheartening. Wasnt last game of the season. Didn't retire from baseball after the game. Etc. Etc. Why I have never watched the famous Gehrig or Ruth movies. When film people start making shit up to make it more "dramatic" I ask for my check.

Well to be fair it is a fictional movie, not a biopic.

[Carter08]

I personally think a Moonlight Graham card is one of the coolest things to seek out In the hobby. I have zero problem knowing that is based on fiction more than fact.

[kevlar7]

I have enjoyed searching for Moonlight Graham items over the years. The hunt is what I enjoy the most about collecting sports memorabilia and as others have stated, it takes a lot of patience trying to find Archie Graham items. Living in MN, I also thought is was fascinating that Doc Graham spent his later years here. I have come to realize that as I get older, I love the story that each piece of memorabilia tells. And in this case, it has been an enjoyable journey separating fact from fiction and learning about the life of times of Graham.

Here are a couple that I have that I would be open to offers on, but it wouldn't be easy for me to let them go as it took many years to find them. Good luck to everyone on their hunt.

[rhettyeakley]

A lot of what we collect is motivated by emotion and some of that emotion is based in fact, some on nostalgia, and some on fiction.

Not sure why people have to chime in and tell those that collect a certain player that they are “irrational” or implying they are doing it wrong or that it is stupid.

Let people collect what they want, if you have a problem with how they do it you do not, in fact, have to chime in and let them know you do not approve.

Personally i don’t see much different between Graham and Ruth’s “called shot” that people are willing to pay a ton for anything related to that (likely) apocryphal story.

My 2-cents that nobody asked for 🤣

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Many aspects of the movie (preumably the book) that were totally wrong . . . really disheartening. Wasnt last game of the season. Didn't retire from baseball after the game. Etc. Etc. Why I have never watched the famous Gehrig or Ruth movies. When film people start making shit up to make it more "dramatic" I ask for my check.

Steve,

No judgement here, but you never watched Pride of the Yankees? Even if some of it is dramatized, Gary Cooper gives an incredible performance. I understand wanting to separate fact from fiction though.

- James