Lou Piniella, perennial rookie

I'm not sure who holds the record for having the most Topps rookie
cards in the 1960s. But then outfielder Lou Piniella must be a
contender. He had rookie cards in 1964, 1968, and 1969.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=2746820773

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=2747336029

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=2747826467

His 1964 venture into the big leagues was with Baltimore. The 21 year
old played in 4 games, getting 1 at bat, and no hits.

Cleveland gave him a try in 1968. There he played in 6 games,
amassing 5 at bats, no hits, 1 run, and 1 RBI. Maybe they should have
held on to him, but they didn't.

Showing some grit, he returned to the majors in 1969. His card
identifies him as a Seattle Pilot, but they traded him to Kansas City
without using him in any games. KC gave him a chance, and he rewarded
their faith by winning the rookie of the year award for '69.

He spent 4 years with KC. In 1972 he batted .312, made all-star team,
led the league in doubles, and came in second in hits. He was traded
to the Yanks in 1974, wearing the pin-stripes as an outfielder, first
baseman, and designated hitter for 11 seasons. His career batting
average was .291.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/pinielo01.shtml

Ron
http://rbjorn1.home.comcast.net/

I'm not sure who holds the record for having the most Topps rookie
cards in the 1960s. But then outfielder Lou Piniella must be a
contender. He had rookie cards in 1964, 1968, and 1969.

Bill Davis actually has *four*. 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968.

How could a player have more than one rookie card? THe first card of Sweet Lou
maybe from a team that he only had four at bats for but its from a Topps set
that has all the required licenses and was nationally distributed. It meets all
of the requirements. So why wouldn't it be a rookie?

How could a player have more than one rookie card? THe first card of Sweet
Lou
maybe from a team that he only had four at bats for but its from a Topps set
that has all the required licenses and was nationally distributed. It meets
all
of the requirements. So why wouldn't it be a rookie?

Who said it wasn't?

Who said it wasn't? BRBR

First poster of the thread said that Lou had four different rookie cards.

Lou's on 3 different rookie headshot cards they used to put out. BRBR

Lou has one rookie card. Go back and reread the what the first poster said. He
says "Lou had four rookie cards." I don't know what he might or might not have
meant. Lou has ONE rookie card. He may appear on other "rookie headshots"
becuase he's still a rookie by Major League standards. That's what beginners
don't understand about this hobby. A guy could come up from AA in 2003 and
eligable for the ROY award but his baseball rookie could be from 1997.
Understand? Not a problem.

Hey BJ - Obviously by modern collecting standards the 1964 is his true
rookie card. Thanks for pointing this out. But back then all three
were considered rookie cards simply because they had the special Topps
rookie format. The players on them were rookies, and the word
"rookie" or "rookies" was plainly written on the front.

Nobody has come up with a very good replacement name for them, so most
vintage collectors still call this type "rookie cards". But they are
not always the true rookie cards of the players, if you apply today's
most accepted standards.

Ron


On 20 Aug 2003 04:03:30 GMT, (BlackJet76) wrote:

Lou's on 3 different rookie headshot cards they used to put out. BRBR

Lou has one rookie card. Go back and reread the what the first poster said. He
says "Lou had four rookie cards." I don't know what he might or might not have
meant. Lou has ONE rookie card. He may appear on other "rookie headshots"
becuase he's still a rookie by Major League standards. That's what beginners
don't understand about this hobby. A guy could come up from AA in 2003 and
eligable for the ROY award but his baseball rookie could be from 1997.
Understand? Not a problem.

No, the original post said he had three "TOPPS" rookie cards, which implies
that he wasn't talking about the accepted hobby definition of an RC, but
rather various rookie versions
released by Topps. How anyone could NOT have understood the intent of the
original post is beyond me. And to claim that this has anything to do with
what "beginners don't understand about this hobby" is pretentious and
arrogant on your part.

-Dave C.


"BlackJet76" wrote in message
...
Lou's on 3 different rookie headshot cards they used to put out.
BRBR

Lou has one rookie card. Go back and reread the what the first poster
said. He
says "Lou had four rookie cards." I don't know what he might or might not
have
meant. Lou has ONE rookie card. He may appear on other "rookie headshots"
becuase he's still a rookie by Major League standards. That's what
beginners
don't understand about this hobby. A guy could come up from AA in 2003 and
eligable for the ROY award but his baseball rookie could be from 1997.
Understand? Not a problem.

No, the original post said he had three "TOPPS" rookie cards, which implies
that he wasn't talking about the accepted hobby definition of an RC, BRBR

Why would anyone not use the accepted hobby definitions ?

"BlackJet76" wrote in message
...
No, the original post said he had three "TOPPS" rookie cards, which
implies
that he wasn't talking about the accepted hobby definition of an RC,
BRBR

Why would anyone not use the accepted hobby definitions ?

Because the accepted definition of a RC is irrelevant to his comment,
and it would have defeated the purpose of his original observation. His
observation highlights (very interestingly, I might add) how Topps used
to make an assessment each year of which young players were on the verge
of becoming regulars, and were "worthy" of appearing on the limited
selection of cards that were made available to showcase rookies. It was
interesting because of Topps kept misjudging the timing of Piniella's
emergence as a regular player, but continued to feature him multiple
times. It is also interesting that he continued to qualify as a rookie
by MLB standards during all three seasons for which his card appeared,
and even more interestingly, went on to actually win the award in 1969,
though not with any of the three teams for which he was listed on the
three cards.

Let's contrast that with the hobby today, for which we have strict RC
definitions. Bowman puts out a RC for every freaking possible young
player they can think of, knowing that by shear volume, they are bound
to include some future star, and thereby shutting out all of the other
manufacturers from having any unique RC's. Thus, you end up with a set
of a hundred cards of players whose careers don't amount to jack. Mix
that in with a bunch of inserts, parallels, game-worn, signature, die
cut, one-of-one horse**** designed to make the base set totally
meaningless, and you have the current state of the hobby. So
interesting comments like the one that started this thread are replaced
with comments like "how much do you think this Jake Hardigan RC insert
pull is worth?"

-Dave C.