1. Originally Posted by GiambiJuice
That's interesting. Wikipedia only lists 29. I'd be interested to know who the other two are.
Should I reveal them now or wait until the 29 you have are guessed? -- Edit: I just discovered that these two guys each missed a decade in the middle of their runs, so I suppose they don't really count. My bad. In that case, I might as well reveal them -- Gabby Street (1904-1905, 1908-1912, 1931) and Charley O'Leary (1904-1913, 1934). Talk about a comeback.

Originally Posted by GiambiJuice
Jack Ryan is correct but George Davis is quite the opposite. He's one of the few players who have played 20 seasons, but only in two decades (1890-1909)
There is only one other player besides Davis to play 20 seasons in only 2 decades (under the 0-9 system). However, there are another three players to do the same but under the 1-0 system.
Last edited by Nerdlinger; 04-25-2012 at 03:01 PM.

Strictly speaking, since there was no year zero, all decades, centuries, and millennia begin with a year ending with a 1.
??? So the 50s start in 1951??? A century starts at 1 because it is the nth century. If we called it the 6th decade of the 20th century it would start in 1951, but the 50s is a decade starting in 1950. Any 10 year period is a decade and any 100 is a century but we know that decades are conventionally the x0's, 50s, 60s etc.

3. Originally Posted by brett
??? So the 50s start in 1951???
According to the calendar we use they do. Decades end with a zero.

4. The distinction I make is based on what you call the decade/century/millennium. The 20th century runs from 1901-2000, while the 1900s run from 1900-1999. They're not exactly the same, being one year off. Similarly, the 200th decade (i.e., the 10th decade of the 20th century) runs from 1991-2000, while the 1990s run from 1990-1999. Both types of ranges are valid when discussing such time periods, and though the 0-9 system is used far more commonly, the 1-0 system is technically the more accurate one.

5. A decade is simply a period of 10 years. Since the officially designated major leagues (by MLB) begin with the National League in 1876, one could say the decades should run 1876-1885, 1886-1895, etc. If including the National Association, one might prefer 1871-80, 1881-90, etc. It is arbitrary, but when talking of the 30s, 40s, etc., then 1930-39, and 1940-49 are correct, and, the 50s do not start with 1951. The 50s are 1950-59. Just because 1950 is the end of the 195th decade AD, that doesn't make it part of the 1940s. The 1960 Pirates did not win the World Series during the 1950s just as Ron Santo and Juan Marichal did not debut in the 50s.

6. Originally Posted by bluesky5
Arlie Latham
Arlie Latham is incorrect.

7. Originally Posted by GiambiJuice
Arlie Latham is incorrect.
But he does qualify under the 1-0 system.

Edit: Also, you have Nick Altrock's last season as 1924, but it's actually 1933. He's a five-decade player like Minoso.
Last edited by Nerdlinger; 04-26-2012 at 07:44 AM.

8. Originally Posted by EdTarbusz
According to the calendar we use they do. Decades end with a zero.

a: a period of 10 years

9. Originally Posted by DJC
But he does qualify under the 1-0 system.

Edit: Also, you have Nick Altrock's last season as 1924, but it's actually 1933. He's a five-decade player like Minoso.
That's weird, B-Ref doesn't show any appearances for Altrock in 1933...however it says Final Game: October 1, 1933. What gives?

10. Originally Posted by GiambiJuice
That's weird, B-Ref doesn't show any appearances for Altrock in 1933...however it says Final Game: October 1, 1933. What gives?
Look under his batting statistics. You'll see it.

11. Originally Posted by ian2813
Look under his batting statistics. You'll see it.
Thanks, I see it now. Does anyone know the story behind that? Kinda weird for a pitcher who was retired for 9 years to get one PA in as a 54 year old and than one more PA two years later, as a 56 year old.

12. Originally Posted by GiambiJuice
Thanks, I see it now. Does anyone know the story behind that? Kinda weird for a pitcher who was retired for 9 years to get one PA in as a 54 year old and than one more PA two years later, as a 56 year old.
Well, he was a coach for the Senators from 1912-53. Maybe he was just filling in on a day the team was short-handed.

13. Originally Posted by GiambiJuice
Thanks, I see it now. Does anyone know the story behind that? Kinda weird for a pitcher who was retired for 9 years to get one PA in as a 54 year old and than one more PA two years later, as a 56 year old.
It may have been done to qualify him for a pension. It was common in the 50s and 60s for a player to be added to a team's roster for a short period of time so that the player would qualify under the players pension program.

14. Originally Posted by Macker
A decade is simply a period of 10 years. Since the officially designated major leagues (by MLB) begin with the National League in 1876, one could say the decades should run 1876-1885, 1886-1895, etc. If including the National Association, one might prefer 1871-80, 1881-90, etc. It is arbitrary, but when talking of the 30s, 40s, etc., then 1930-39, and 1940-49 are correct, and, the 50s do not start with 1951. The 50s are 1950-59. Just because 1950 is the end of the 195th decade AD, that doesn't make it part of the 1940s. The 1960 Pirates did not win the World Series during the 1950s just as Ron Santo and Juan Marichal did not debut in the 50s.
Slice it any way you want, but when one counts to ten, one starts at one, not zero. Yes, we as humans like to group things into neat little piles, and, as a fan of both sports and music, I'm quite used to and accepting of the 0-9 system of decadal groupings, but, as DJC and I have accurately pointed out, the 21st Century did not begin until January 1, 2001.

This is part of a debate I was trying to avoid. I hope it goes no further, especially since it's been clarified several times now.

15. Just to clarify, this isn't about when the 21st Century began. Anyway, regarding Altrock, his appearances were before the pension program. It used to be fairly common for end-of-season games to include some nonsense appearances by coaches or feature players playing out of position. Some of Babe Ruth's Yankee pitching appearances were just publicity stunts to bring in some curious fans to meaningless games.

16. So, can I name the last two unguessed players now? I'd also like to offer a counter-trivia question, if possible.

17. Mike Morgan allowed Yaz 400th homerun in 1979, and pitched for the Diamondbacks in the 2001 World Series.

18. Satchel Paige definitely played pro-ball in 4 decades. Whether or not you count Negro League time, I don't know.

19. Originally Posted by DJC
So, can I name the last two unguessed players now? I'd also like to offer a counter-trivia question, if possible.

20. Originally Posted by GiambiJuice
Kid Gleason (1888-1912) and Jack O'Connor (1887-1910).

As mentioned earlier, there are 6 players not among the 29 listed in the OP who have played in 4 decades but only under the 1-0 system. Three have already been guessed, but three remain. Who are they? No looksie-upsies.

1. Arlie Latham (1880-1909)
2. Cy Young (1890-1911)
3. Elmer Valo (1940-1961)
4.
5.
6.

Also as mentioned earlier, there are 5 players who spent 20 seasons in the majors but played in just 2 decades. Two of these qualify under the 0-9 system, and 3 qualify under the 1-0 system. One of them has already been guessed. Name the other four. Again, no looksie-upsies. (Hint: I'm counting seasons in the National Association.)

1. George Davis (1890-1909)
2. Deacon White (1871-1890)
3.
4.
5.
Last edited by Nerdlinger; 04-28-2012 at 09:17 PM.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•