1993 Fleer completely forgot to include Ozzie Smith...any other sets accidently leave out a player?

Estil

I don't know if anyone knows this but did you know that 1993 Fleer, the first year it was done in two series, they completely forgot to include Ozzie Smith? I was just wondering if any other sets (like sets with 2-3 series) did that? Where they accidentally forgot to include a HOFer (or at least near-HOFer or something)? Obviously I don't mean not including a rookie or prospect when in hindsight they should've (that's a whole different topic)

I guess that's all the more reason Fleer went back to single series the very next year, and then regular+update for the next few years after that!!

JoeBanzai

Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but Topps didn't have Killebrew in the 1957 set after having him in 1955&56.

FirstBeard

Great thread! Ozzie had 590 plate appearances in 1992 and batted almost .300.

Killer was 18 in 1954 and in the Bigs!!! He hit 4 HRs in 1955.

craig44

Alex Rodriguez did not have a Topps card until 1998 I believe. Topps also left Bonds off from some sets in the mid 00's I think.

In Football, Tom Brady had 44 rookie cards in 2000 and only 2 cards in 2001. one from UD and one from playoff.

Ted williams did not have a 52 or 53 topps card

JoeBanzai

@FirstBeard said:
Great thread! Ozzie had 590 plate appearances in 1992 and batted almost .300.

Killer was 18 in 1954 and in the Bigs!!! He hit 4 HRs in 1955.

I'm sure you're dying to know;
Killebrew signed what was called. "Bonus Baby" contract (as did Koufax and Clemente, both with the Dodgers).

If any bonus baby was sent to the minors in his first two years, he could be claimed by another club (Clemente was and was claimed by the Pirates).

Had Killebrew been sent to the minors in '54, he might have been in the lineup full time for the Senators by 1957(?). Instead he was forced to wait until 1959 to become a starter and he responded by leading the league in HR.

I'll never understand why the Nationals/Senators didn't just PLAY HIM in the majors right away, they were a horrible ball club, getting him experience should have been their top priority.

Stay tuned for more Harmon Killebrew trivia! 😁

Estil

@JoeBanzai said:
Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but Topps didn't have Killebrew in the 1957 set after having him in 1955&56.

Did they fully intend to include him but forgot? Obviously it doesn't count if say, another rival company like Fleer or Bowman had their rights.

Estil

@craig44 said:
Alex Rodriguez did not have a Topps card until 1998 I believe. Topps also left Bonds off from some sets in the mid 00's I think.

In Football, Tom Brady had 44 rookie cards in 2000 and only 2 cards in 2001. one from UD and one from playoff.

Ted williams did not have a 52 or 53 topps card

That's because they were under license with someone else or otherwise refused to be on the card. That's not really what I'm talking about. I mean they fully intended to include the player (remember when doing two series you can't have too many good/great players in just one series or the other) but goofed and overlooked it. My guess is with 1993 Fleer, they divided up all the players into two lists to see who'd go where...and I guess they should've done like Santa and checked them twice! It's no wonder they went back to single series the very next year, then regular+update set after that!!

So the moral of the story boys and girls, when making ANY kind of list, be sure to check it twice!

RedHeart54

1956-57 Parkhurst hockey entire set. Apparently they just forgot to make it.

Estil

@RedHeart54 said:
1956-57 Parkhurst hockey entire set. Apparently they just forgot to make it.

What do you mean? That doesn't make sense...

JoeBanzai

@Estil said:

@JoeBanzai said:
Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but Topps didn't have Killebrew in the 1957 set after having him in 1955&56.

Did they fully intend to include him but forgot? Obviously it doesn't count if say, another rival company like Fleer or Bowman had their rights.

Hard to say, but he may not have been on the roster when they decided on who they were going to include. He played early in '56, got sent down and came back up to the majors late in the year.

But my there's MORE!

Killebrew was also excluded from the 1976 set. He played his last year in KC but no Topps card with him. SSPC had a card with him in a Royals uniform.

Tabe

@craig44 said:

In Football, Tom Brady had 44 rookie cards in 2000 and only 2 cards in 2001. one from UD and one from playoff.

He also had a game worn patch card from Pacific in 2001.

RedHeart54

That’s apparently what the spokesman said regarding the ‘56 Parkhurst set. They just didn’t make it. They’d made sets since ‘51, failed/“forgot” to make a ‘56 set, then continued making them the next season in ‘57.

frankhardy

The Fleer Ozzie Smith situation got cleaned up in what was called the "Fleer Final Edition". For years, Fleer had their Fleer Update Set. In 1993, they decided to call it the "Final Edition". Ozzie Smith is included in the "Final Edition" and is number F131. Another interesting tidbit is that the very next year, they went back to calling it an Update Set up through 1999.

In Series 1 & 2, it must have been an oversight. Either that, or they PLANNED on having some stars in the Final Edition Set. Not sure how many stars are in the set. I only have the Cardinals team set.

JoeBanzai

Quite a few star players in the set; Maddux, Bonds, Sheffield, Bo Jackson, Wade Boggs and a few others.

Estil

The Fleer Ozzie Smith situation got cleaned up in what was called the "Fleer Final Edition". For years, Fleer had their Fleer Update Set. In 1993, they decided to call it the "Final Edition". Ozzie Smith is included in the "Final Edition" and is number F131. Another interesting tidbit is that the very next year, they went back to calling it an Update Set up through 1999.

In Series 1 & 2, it must have been an oversight. Either that, or they PLANNED on having some stars in the Final Edition Set. Not sure how many stars are in the set. I only have the Cardinals team set.

I did in fact just look that up to see. I'm a bit surprised they went with such a huge update set. But I guess if you really like 1993 Fleer and can't get enough of it well, there ya go!

Estil

@RedHeart54 said:
That’s apparently what the spokesman said regarding the ‘56 Parkhurst set. They just didn’t make it. They’d made sets since ‘51, failed/“forgot” to make a ‘56 set, then continued making them the next season in ‘57.

From what I understand they weren't so sure if it'd be profitable enough to continue so they skipped that year and then decided next year to take another chance on it. It was a business decision...you can't "forget" something like that.

jordangretzkyfan

Not sure if there were contract issues with Topps or not, but Rickey Henderson didn’t have a regular card in 1998, despite having cards every other year from 1980-2003. Similarly, Barry Bonds was left out of the 2004 Topps set, despite having regular Topps cards from 1987-2007.

frankhardy

@jordangretzkyfan said:
Not sure if there were contract issues with Topps or not, but Rickey Henderson didn’t have a regular card in 1998, despite having cards every other year from 1980-2003. Similarly, Barry Bonds was left out of the 2004 Topps set, despite having regular Topps cards from 1987-2007.

Barry Bonds was included as a bonus card in the 2004 Topps Traded Set from the HTA version. The complete set has 220 cards, but Bonds was #T221 (again, as an HTA bonus).

Estil

@JoeBanzai said:

I'll never understand why the Nationals/Senators didn't just PLAY HIM in the majors right away, they were a horrible ball club, getting him experience should have been their top priority.

Because it could've ended up like what happened to this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Clyde

Estil

@jordangretzkyfan said:
Not sure if there were contract issues with Topps or not, but Rickey Henderson didn’t have a regular card in 1998, despite having cards every other year from 1980-2003. Similarly, Barry Bonds was left out of the 2004 Topps set, despite having regular Topps cards from 1987-2007.

Yet Rickey was on one of the inserts of that year...and 1998 Topps left out Randy Myers as well.
http://www.baseballcardpedia.com/index.php/1998_Topps

JoeBanzai

@Estil said:

@JoeBanzai said:

I'll never understand why the Nationals/Senators didn't just PLAY HIM in the majors right away, they were a horrible ball club, getting him experience should have been their top priority.

Because it could've ended up like what happened to this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Clyde

Or he could've ended up with 700 home runs.

Estil

@JoeBanzai said:

@Estil said:

@JoeBanzai said:

I'll never understand why the Nationals/Senators didn't just PLAY HIM in the majors right away, they were a horrible ball club, getting him experience should have been their top priority.

Because it could've ended up like what happened to this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Clyde

Or he could've ended up with 700 home runs.

My point is that you was asking why they "didn't just" rush Harmon into the majors...because it could've half ruined his career in the same way it did for David...as he WAS rushed into the majors right away, also because the Rangers were a horrible ball club and David was their only hope at the time of getting anywhere near a decent amount of fans to show up.

It's a classic case of be careful what you're wishing for. Besides, Harmon still hit more home runs than Mickey Mantle AND Reggie Jackson...and they gave that dude a candy bar!

JoeBanzai

@Estil said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@Estil said:

@JoeBanzai said:

I'll never understand why the Nationals/Senators didn't just PLAY HIM in the majors right away, they were a horrible ball club, getting him experience should have been their top priority.

Because it could've ended up like what happened to this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Clyde

Or he could've ended up with 700 home runs.

My point is that you was asking why they "didn't just" rush Harmon into the majors...because it could've half ruined his career in the same way it did for David...as he WAS rushed into the majors right away, also because the Rangers were a horrible ball club and David was their only hope at the time of getting anywhere near a decent amount of fans to show up.

It's a classic case of be careful what you're wishing for. Besides, Harmon still hit more home runs than Mickey Mantle AND Reggie Jackson...and they gave that dude a candy bar!

I didn't say "rush" him.

Killebrew, like any young player, needs to play to improve. He didn't start a game until the 131st game of the year in 1954. He got 2 more starts that season.

The next year, he had 3 or more plate appearances in a game 17 times.

In 1956 he got 5 starts before finally being sent to the minors to get some playing time.

A vast majority of his games played up to that point amounted to a single at bat. It seems to me that's a lot more pressure than getting him a couple of starts a week and/or the second game of a double header.

Yes, Harmon had a fine career, when he retired, he was #5 all-time on the home run list and of those ahead of him, only Babe Ruth hit HRs at a faster rate.

Killebrew is STILL the greatest right handed hitter in AL history!

Panama Mutiny (Formerly lawyer05)

Allan Lewis was an outfielder and pinch runner over parts of 6 seasons (1967–1973) with the Kansas City/Oakland Athletics. Lewis was a member of the 1972 and 1973 World Series champion Athletics.

As a minor leaguer with the Leesburg Athletics in 1966, Lewis set a minor league single-season record with 116 steals, which stood until 1980, when Alan Wiggins stole 120

Despite playing 6 seasons and winning two world championships and breaking records in the minors.
Topps never made him a card.

Estil

@lawyer05 said:
Despite playing 6 seasons and winning two world championships and breaking records in the minors.
Topps never made him a card.

Did he not sign one of Topps' contracts? Perhaps for some bizarre reason he did not wish to be on a baseball card? Interestingly one of our local car dealership guys made it on a card and he only appeared in two games and pitched just 3.1 innings!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Brubaker_(baseball)

craig44

@JoeBanzai said:

@Estil said:

@JoeBanzai said:

I'll never understand why the Nationals/Senators didn't just PLAY HIM in the majors right away, they were a horrible ball club, getting him experience should have been their top priority.

Because it could've ended up like what happened to this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Clyde

Or he could've ended up with 700 home runs.

I bet he would have Joe. I have often wondered the same thing about Wade Boggs. He played a LONG time in the minors. It would have been a stretch, but I wonder if he could have given 4,000 hits a run?

JoeBanzai

@craig44 said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@Estil said:

@JoeBanzai said:

I'll never understand why the Nationals/Senators didn't just PLAY HIM in the majors right away, they were a horrible ball club, getting him experience should have been their top priority.

Because it could've ended up like what happened to this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Clyde

Or he could've ended up with 700 home runs.

I bet he would have Joe. I have often wondered the same thing about Wade Boggs. He played a LONG time in the minors. It would have been a stretch, but I wonder if he could have given 4,000 hits a run?

No wonder it took so long for Boston to win a WS, lots of boneheaded decisions.

Estil

@JoeBanzai said:

No wonder it took so long for Boston to win a WS, lots of boneheaded decisions.

I can't help but wonder if the BoSox being the last MLB team to have a black player was a factor as well. Now Tom Yawkey's personal 'tude towards blacks though...that apparently is subject to debate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Yawkey#Integration_of_the_Red_Sox

PS: Forget the alleged Curse of the Bambino, the Babe was far too big for Boston and he had very much worn out his welcome with the Red Sox through his many antics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt9L78iYTmk

mrmopar

@Estil said:

@lawyer05 said:
Despite playing 6 seasons and winning two world championships and breaking records in the minors.
Topps never made him a card.

Did he not sign one of Topps' contracts? Perhaps for some bizarre reason he did not wish to be on a baseball card? Interestingly one of our local car dealership guys made it on a card and he only appeared in two games and pitched just 3.1 innings!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Brubaker_(baseball)

He signed for Heritage when they did the 67 set. I was maybe one of the few happy people to be able to get a certified Brubaker auto card. Exactly why I love Archives and Heritage.

Estil

@mrmopar said:
He signed for Heritage when they did the 67 set. I was maybe one of the few happy people to be able to get a certified Brubaker auto card. Exactly why I love Archives and Heritage.

Oh wowie! I would've never dreamed Topps would've even bothered with asking Bruce to do this. That would indeed be a fantastic piece of local history memorabilia...

EDIT: Okay so there's apparently 67 of them...at least the serial numbered red ink kind. True there's #67/67 on Ebay but ideally I'd want #17 to match me and my late wife's anniversary date (6/17/2005).

On that note, when our county celebrated its bicentennial in 2015, they sold commemorative coins (about the size of a silver eagle; don't know if there's any actual silver in it though) numbered to 200 so naturally I picked #176...do I need to explain why?

daltex

@JoeBanzai said:

@Estil said:

@JoeBanzai said:
Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but Topps didn't have Killebrew in the 1957 set after having him in 1955&56.

Did they fully intend to include him but forgot? Obviously it doesn't count if say, another rival company like Fleer or Bowman had their rights.

Hard to say, but he may not have been on the roster when they decided on who they were going to include. He played early in '56, got sent down and came back up to the majors late in the year.

But my there's MORE!

Killebrew was also excluded from the 1976 set. He played his last year in KC but no Topps card with him. SSPC had a card with him in a Royals uniform.

OK, but Topps only printed cards of players, even superstars, when they expected them to play that year. I assume they thought kids wouldn't have an interest in guys they couldn't follow on TV/radio/the newspaper. I mean there was also no 1977 Aaron or 1983 Stargell and in 1984 Yastrzemski, Bench, and Perry only got to share a "Highlights" card.

frankhardy

@daltex said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@Estil said:

@JoeBanzai said:
Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but Topps didn't have Killebrew in the 1957 set after having him in 1955&56.

Did they fully intend to include him but forgot? Obviously it doesn't count if say, another rival company like Fleer or Bowman had their rights.

Hard to say, but he may not have been on the roster when they decided on who they were going to include. He played early in '56, got sent down and came back up to the majors late in the year.

But my there's MORE!

Killebrew was also excluded from the 1976 set. He played his last year in KC but no Topps card with him. SSPC had a card with him in a Royals uniform.

OK, but Topps only printed cards of players, even superstars, when they expected them to play that year. I assume they thought kids wouldn't have an interest in guys they couldn't follow on TV/radio/the newspaper. I mean there was also no 1977 Aaron or 1983 Stargell and in 1984 Yastrzemski, Bench, and Perry only got to share a "Highlights" card.

They do now....

2023 Topps features both Albert Pujols and Yadier Molina even though they both announced their retirement at the end of last year and were celebrated all year long.

Estil

Mickey Mantle's 1969 Topps card mentions his retirement on the back! As for Yaz, well, as the Beckett article about "Last Cards" says, here he is yuking it up one last time! So he DID in fact get a 1984 card!