1979 Topps Ramblings

Synthsense · May 1, 2003 12:52PM

Doe anybody know what baseball setcontains the most Hall of Famers or future Hall Of Famers? I been buying alot of 1979 Topps product lately and have noticed that this set has a pretty good listing of Hall Of Famers. 30 current Hall of Famers and Pete Rose, Dale Murphy, Lou Whitaker, Andre Dawson, Alan Trammell, and Gary Carter all of a pretty good chance of getting in in the next couple of years. Can anybody think of a set that has more?

Virtualizard · May 1, 2003 9:29PM

Synthsense,

You might want to check on Gary Carter's status again.

JEB.

RobE · May 1, 2003 9:57PM

I noticed the same thing too for the set I collect and counted all the accomplishments of it's players where a regisrty set has been built.It shouldn't be too far behind the 79 set.

The 80 set has 29 inducted:
3 are Managers
26 players
Lou Brock's last card counted in the 29 mentioned.
2 more sure lock - Henderson & Molitor
Probably Joe Torre as manager and maybe even player
A few underated stars like : Parker,Trammell,Dawson,Guidry,Garvey,Kaat,Rice as well as other notable semi stars and popular players

And Pete Rose who is in his own Hall of Fame.

25 players have earned an MVP at some point in their career.11 have made it to the Hall and 14 have not.

18 Pitchers have earned a CY and 6 have made it into the Hall.

One thing about the CY according to the registry that I never knew is that Nolan Ryan never won a CY or if he did the set needs another card added to it.

srs1a · May 1, 2003 10:01PM

I think all of the sets from the 60's and early 70's have at least a few more. It looks like 65, 70, and 71 all have 39 + Rose...68 and 69 with 38 + Rose. This is not an exact count -- just a quck survey through the SMR.

Galveston · May 1, 2003 10:09PM

Somebody else will have to count but, on a percentage basis, I think the 70 and 71 Kelloggs sets are pretty high....

RedHeart54 · May 1, 2003 11:11PM

<< <i>One thing about the CY according to the registry that I never knew is that Nolan Ryan never won a CY or if he did the set needs another card added to it. >>

The thing we always forget about Ryan is despite his dominance, he played on some pretty average teams throughout his career. His win/loss record wasn't horrible most years, but it wasn't outstanding either. He won 20 games only twice ('73, '74). As far as his SO record, fastball, and overall ability to strike fear into opposing batters' hearts, he was the second coming of Sandy Koufax- he just didn't play on any Koufax-like teams.

That's an interesting question regarding the set with the most HOFers. (If you want HOFer number to set number ratio, look no further than the five or six card 1986 Fleer "Future Hall of Famers" set. Ryan, Rose, Carlton, Jackson, Seaver (and ?)).

mikeschmidt · May 1, 2003 11:30PM

<<The thing we always forget about Ryan is despite his dominance, he played on some pretty average teams throughout his career>>

Is that really true? I know that Rob Neyer and the like have done an analysis of this contention -- but I do not recall what the result was. Ryan played in 27 baseball seasons -- and the team he played for reached the postseason 6 times. I'm only guessing here -- but that is over 20%, and, it suggests to me that the teams he played for never really held Ryan back from being a superstar. Yes -- he never played for a dynasty team -- but I question whether he played for bad teams, as some seem to contend.

He was an absolutely amazing pitcher when he was on. He is third all-time in major league losses, and he has to be one of the closest HOFers to a .500 winning percentage ever.

DrNguyenVanFalk · May 1, 2003 11:50PM

I'm a huge Nolan Ryan fan, but the perception that he pitched great for mediocre teams does an injustice to Steve Carlton (one of the most underrated players in baseball history, IMHO).

Carlton had a .574 lifetime winning percentage, which wasn't helped by his horrible 16-37 record between 1985-88 (the years he was over 40), when he was no longer an effective pitcher.

Ryan, on the other hand, had a .526 lifetime winning percentage, and was 71-66 between 1987-93 (the years he was over 40), and he was effective for all but the last two years of his career.

And, although it is anectdotal, look at 1972 for both pitchers: Carlton was 27-10 for a team that finished 59-97. Ryan was 19-16 for a team that finished 75-80. Ryan was a dominating strikeout pitcher, while Lefty was one of the top five pitchers in baseball history (again, IMHO). I would like to see a comparison of the winning percentages of all of the teams Ryan played on vs. all of the teams Carlton played on. My prediction is that they would be very similar.

1420sports · May 1, 2003 11:54PM

If I had a choice of sending Carlton or Ryan to pitch Game 7 of the World Series, without a doubt it would be Steve Carlton. He is the greatest lefty to ever pitch. And certainly the most underrated next to Spahn.

mcastaldi · May 1, 2003 11:57PM

Schmidt> "it suggests to me that the teams he played for never really held Ryan back from being a superstar."

Unlike Bert Blyleven who played on some absolutely horrible teams and still has a higher winning percentage than Ryan and both have very comparable ERAs (Ryan @ 3.19 and Blyleven @ 3.31). Yet noone really considers Blyleven seriously for the HOF.

Mike

1420sports · May 2, 2003 12:16AM

Blyleven would certainly get my vote if I had one.

dstudeba · May 2, 2003 12:18AM

Mike -

I seriously consider Blyleven for the Hall. His abilities always impressed me, and his team 'selection' always depressed me. But unfortunately my opinion is not going to help him get in any time soon.

- Dan
--------------------------

Trying to find Wilson Franks, starting to look for Stahl Meyers

dude · May 2, 2003 12:27AM

Blyleven did play for the '79 Pirates who won the World Series that year. He has my vote for the HOF too.

LJB17 · May 2, 2003 12:31AM

<< <i>Somebody else will have to count but, on a percentage basis, I think the 70 and 71 Kelloggs sets are pretty high.... >>

I looked into this a little and since I am a big fan of the 77 Cloth set for the reason of high % of HOF I made a little comparison.

1970 Kelloggs 21/75 for 28% HOF plus the Rose factor
1971 Kelloggs 18/75 for 24% HOF plus Rose and Torre
1977 Cloth 18/55 for 32.7% plus Rose

I know these are all star sets, thus the obvious high percentage of HOF, but that high percentage along with the manageability of the set is what makes them all so attractive to the collector.

helionaut · May 2, 2003 12:47AM

I started calculating HOFer numbers a while ago. Percentage were too tricky for me to carre about, with all the subsets and whatnot. IIRC, the 70s set are largely similar, differing only by a couple points, which is more an impact of set size than HOFer count. If you add in people who "should" be in like Rose and people not yet eligible, plus people I'd elect if they gave me a vote, like Santo, Kaat, and Blyleven, the highest numbers were in the early to mid-70s, with the 1975 set I think having the most. It's at a nice point in time with 3 HOF RCs (Brett, Carter, Yount), and I think 3 HOF final cards (Gibson, Killebrew, F-Rob) giving the set a "reach" from the mid-50s to the mid-90s.

I never counted up the HOFers in the T206 or T205 set, though. Bet there's a lot in those.

aro13 · May 2, 2003 12:55AM

Blyleven pitched on some bad teams but he also pitched for some teams that scored a lot of runs. For a starting pitcher the important team numbers in regards to their wins are their run support and how strong their bullpen is behind them in terms of closing out their games. For example, in 1984 Bert Blyleven was 19-7 for the 75-87 Cleveland Indians. The perception is that he pitched great for a lousy team. Sorry, the 84 Indians finished 3rd in the league in runs. The reason they stunk is the other starting pitchers (Heaton, Sutcliffe, Comer and Farr) could not get their eras below 4.75. Conversely, Nolan Ryan had a 8-16 record for the 1987 Astros who also finished 75-86. Ryan had a superb 2.76 era which in the context of the season (87 was a huge homer run producing year) is amazing. The Astros finished second to last in runs scored.
The point is Blyleven pitched for teams that scored runs, he is indeed worthy of the Hall of Fame in my opinion, but he did not pitch for lousy offensive teams. The problem for his teams might have been that the other starting pitchers were lousy but that did not directly affect his winning percentage or e.r.a.
As for Koufax, the teams he played for were great because he pitched for them. The Dodgers in his last four seasons never finished in the top half of the league in runs scored and yet Koufax posted a 97-27 record. Only Pedro Martinez can compare to Koufax in terms of dominance over a short period of time.

rbeaton · May 2, 2003 1:10AM

How about the 1950 Callahan HOF set. Aren't all 91 cards HOFers??

Robert

Wabittwax · May 2, 2003 1:16AM

Speaking of underrated pitchers, my friend and I were at a show recently and I couldn't believe that you can buying Greg Maddux RC's for about $2-$3 for raw ones. And that's his best RC! He's a lock for the Hall and one of the best ever. Either he gets no respect nowadays or the supply is really that far ahead of the demand.

mikeschmidt · May 2, 2003 1:21AM

Robert:

I would bet that the 1981 - 1986 Metallic HOF Plaque card set has the greatest percentage and number of Hall of Famers of all!

Here's one

LJB17 · May 2, 2003 1:46AM

I think the interest for me is that these other sets are from years from their playing days prior to being HOFers. Yes, Mays was already a lock for the Hall while in the 1970 Kellogg's set, but Carew, Seaver, and Bench were far from HOF stardom at that point.

1420sports · May 2, 2003 1:47AM

On Greg Maddux RC ...
Either he gets no respect nowadays or the supply is really that far ahead of the
demand.

I think it is a little bit of both. Obviously the supply will always be the reason the card will never face big money, and second is that Greg Maddux, although one of the best ever, is not exciting. He is not Nolan Ryan, the Rocket, Pedro or Randy Johnson.

PlayBall · May 2, 2003 2:16AM

I collect the 1940 Play Ball set, and there are 52 different HOFer's in the set (21.7%). As an extra, it also includes a Shoeless Joe card. Many of the HOFer's are retired, which is a drawback, but it's a great selection for a pre-war set.

Kid4hof03 · May 2, 2003 2:19AM

Nolan Ryan, while being a no-brainer hall of famer, is not in the same class as Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton. First of all, Ryan created much trouble with his very high number of walks. We always look at his strikeout numbers and are in awe (rightly so) but very rarely does anyone look at or talk about his walk totals. The other thing that has always bothered me is the talk of him pitching on bad teams. It's very true, but the years he did get to pitch on the big stage of postseason he wasn't great. He didn't pitch well in 1980 or 1986 when the Astros had legitimate shots at winning the NLCS. It's just my two cents, and in no way do I mean that Ryan wasn't great or deserving of his HOF status, I just think that his strikeout record makes us look at him as more than he was. He was great, but he wasn't the greatest pitcher of his time, that title should go to Seaver or Carlton.

Abe

aro13 · May 2, 2003 2:54AM

I agree with 1420 sports about Maddux. Great, great pitcher. I used to love getting to the ballpark early and watch Pedro, Clemens or Maddux warm up. All three of them could hit any spot they wanted with any pitch. The difference was with Pedro and Roger I never had any illusions of grabbing a bat, watching Maddux made me want to grab a bat and hit a few ground ball double play balls to secondbase and shortstop.

Synthsense · May 2, 2003 2:58AM

Pete Rose, Dale Murphy, Lou Whitaker, Andre Dawson, and Alan Trammell will be in the next of couple of years. Yes, I an aware that Carter is in already, don't know what I typed that. I guess I don't consider anything other then Topps, Fleer, Uppder Deck, Bowman, Donruss, and Score has a real set. Do you think those Collect-A-Books will ever be worth sending off to PSA? They feature a ton of curreent Hall Of Famers.

Also, can anybody tell me the 1st year and month Beckett ( The Price Guide) was published?

jaxxr · May 2, 2003 5:17AM

I have a reprint of the first montly Beckett but can't locate it right now, what a surprise, but I seem to recall it was Fall 1979, maybe ??

The 79 set also include the first solo card of Paul Molitor, a deadsure lock for the Hall, as well as the higherst percentage of off-centered , or miscut, or out of focus, or such, cards of alamost any set. Truly difficult to get in high grade in my opinion, especially for one fairly recent.

Doesn't anyone else feel "Lefty" Grove , a 30 game winner with, I believe the best winning % of any 300 game winner, was the best lefty ever ?? , just edging out Koufax or Spahn for that recognotion.

RedHeart54 · May 2, 2003 5:17AM

<< <i>Also, can anybody tell me the 1st year and month Beckett ( The Price Guide) was published >>

The monthly magazine was first published in November 1984. (For the record, they produced their first annual book in 1979.)

PlayBall · May 2, 2003 6:40AM

<< <i>Doesn't anyone else feel "Lefty" Grove , a 30 game winner with, I believe the best winning % of any 300 game winner, was the best lefty ever ?? , just edging out Koufax or Spahn for that recognotion. >>

YES! YES! YES!

I think people forget there were pitchers before the 60's.

Synthsense · May 2, 2003 7:05AM

Do you think one of the reasons that alot of the 1979 Topps unopened product is in such good condition is due to the fact that this set came out when people were just starting to notice that these cards might be worth holding on to due to a price guide being introduced? I have recently open rack packs from the following years 1979, 1981, 1986, and 1987. The 1979 packs are in better condition then the 87 I opened. Chris

RedHeart54 · May 2, 2003 9:27AM

By better condition do you mean corners and such? Are most of your '79s well centered and free of print marks? On the other hand, do '79 racks typically produce most of the nicer cards compared to their wax, cello, and vending counterparts? (I don't know, I haven't opened any of either.) '86s have the black border so it's understandable that they may not be as good. It would appear, however, that '87 is getting into those years that it's almost hard NOT to get mint cards.

Wabittwax · May 3, 2003 8:55AM

You would be surprised with 1987's. They are pretty tough. The tiffany's are pretty easy but the regular 1987 Topps are tough.

Synthsense · May 3, 2003 9:51AM

I am talking about the corners and pack conditions mostly with the 1979's. These cards are rigged with a ton of problems and I have a hard time finding any cards worth sending off so far. One thing I enjoy with these cards are the wacky hairdo's the players had back then and the terrible uniforms they played in. Also, 1986 PSA 9's and 10's do look good in a PSA holders regardless of the player....

1979 Topps Ramblings

Comments