The Baseball Card Blog: March 2007

March 28, 2007

Card Notes - March 28

I don't want to talk about Ugie Urbina.

But, strangely enough, I have been thinking about the idea of legacy lately, and more specifically, the back of Jorge Orta's 1987 Topps card. On it, his blurb says that he's enshrined in the Mexican Baseball Hall of Fame. This morning before work I dug a little deeper and found that the Salón de la Fama del Beisbol is located on the grounds of a brewery in Monterrey, Mexico. And not only is Jorge "Charolito" Orta a member, but so is Josh Gibson and someone named Homobono Marquez (I'd tell you how good he is, but all the pages are in Spanish and I don't really read Spanish, so I'll just say he's 'all good'). Here are a few links to other baseball-related Halls of Fame around the world:

Mexican Baseball Hall of Fame
Venezuelan Baseball Hall of Fame
Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame
Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame

The real kicker will be to wait and see if the Museo de Beisbol in Venezuela inducts Urbina while he's doing time. Something tells me he's not going to be able to save that situation.

Where Old Packs Go To Die
I was in Boston last weekend and, as any card collector up there can tell you, Newbury Comics sells cards--and most of the time sells them for very cheap, much cheaper than you'd expect. I remember a few years ago I bought up the Harvard Square store's supply of Heritage basketball at $0.49 pack. Anyway, whenever I'm there I check them out. I thought it would be no different this time around, maybe get some new packs on the cheap...except this time around I think I may have been the one who ended up with 'SAP' written across my forehead in huge block letters.

I couldn't resist...goddamn Tri-Star...stupid box of packs...what's $20?...I don't know if you've seen these in hobby shops or big box stores or on eBay, but I bought one of those boxes with a picture of a 1952 Topps pack on them. The type across the front of the box screams 'Find the Hi-Series 1952 Topps Pack!!!', and of course there are other old packs worth hundreds of dollars that you could possibly (never) find. So I bought one, and immediately after I bought it--even before I had opened it to take a look at the 20 packs inside--I knew I had been duped. My immediate reaction was that if it was another Tri-Star product (which I'm pretty sure it was), then like the 'Find the Honus Wagner', the packs inside would be worthless, the sum total of the cards would be roughly five dollars (if that) and I'll be out $20.

So I got it home, ripped 'er open and, what do you know, I was staring at a graveyard of packs. But I had to hand it to Tri-Star, and if not Tri-Star then whoever came up with this idea: they found a way to sell old, worthless packs that many dealers had most likely already written off at a loss. I got a lot of packs from 1991, 1992, early Nineties, late Eighties, and one or two weirdos and oddballs that I had forgotten about. I opened most of them, which was cathartic and did momentarily make me forget my post-buy guilt, and left those up in Boston.

In amongst the weirdos and oddballs, the garbage and the junk, I did get three good packs (or at least I would consider three good): 1984 Topps wax, 1989 Topps cello and 1988 Topps American Baseball (sold in Europe). I've been saving these to rip tonight.

1989 Topps Cello

I'm going to start with the 1989 Topps cello. The more I examine it, the more it looks like it was hand-packaged in cellophane, which is totally bizarre, but could also guarantee that there's no chance that I'll find a Randy Johnson or a Gary Sheffield in this pack. I already know I got Dave Winfield and Gregg Jefferies, as they're on the top and bottom of the stack, respectively. And as a sidebar, isn't that the saddest if your Jefferies? Your card is in what is probably a hand-packed cello pack. That means that either someone put you there deliberately to get ride of you, or didn't care enough about you to set you aside. Sad days for you, Gregg Jefferies. At least you're not facing 14 years in a Venezuelan prison.

Well that's totally messed up: I just flipped through the stack of cards and while there's 34 cards (definitely not standard cello pack size), there are two of each of the first six cards: Winfield, Dan Quisenberry, Kelly Downs, Steve Lyons (out of curiousity, I wonder how Psycho would do in a Venezuelan prison), Eric 'Ugly Like Joey Ramone' Plunk, and Julio Franco. Getting two Winfields, two Q's and two Francos no doubt helps the success rate of the pack, but they're really pushing this pack that much closer towards the bizarre.

The rest of the pack: Mike Capel (aka Pat Tabler), Checklist 133-264, Mike Pagliarulo, Chili Davis, Bill Long, Larry Parrish, Jeff Robinson, Brady Anderson, Jim Rice, Wil Tejada, Mike Jackson, Danny Cox, Checklist 529-660, Mike Witt, Tim Laudner, Mookie Wilson, Mark Parent, Bob Ojeda (bad luck with a lawn trimmer, no such bad luck with a machete), Don Mattingly, Ted Power, Floyd Youmans.

Success Rate: 35.29%

I guess Success Rate is not something you can use to judge a pack when 34 cards is your population. It's a mighty tall order to fill.

1988 Topps American Baseball
Trying to drum up interest in American Baseball, Topps sold these cards in Europe in the late Eighties. As you can imagine, they were a flop. Subsequently, they aren't worth very much today. Let's see who I got. Five cards to a pack, one stick of gum...the pack is a boring though omniscent tear-away clear plastic (they should've gone for wax). The cards are smaller than regular sized post-war cards. Greg Walker, Cal Ripken, Eric Davis, Tim Raines, Pedro Guerrero.

Success Rate: 80%

Again, maybe Success Rate isn't a good judge on packs after all, as it doesn't work for packs larger or smaller than 10 to 15 cards in size. Then again, this is a good pack, especially after staring down the barrel of Greg Walker, Chicago White Sox. These cards probably didn't have a chance of success anyways, what with baseball not being played in Europe. It's almost like if Topps unveiled a Cricket card set here: even though the rest of the world's wrapped up right now in the Cricket World Cup, and cricket and rugby and soccer the rest of the time, the United States doesn't care because it's never cared. A card set wouldn't stand a chance.

1984 Topps Wax

I've never opened a wax pack from 1984 Topps before. Should I hold off? Wait and have it graded as an unopened pack? Nah, who am I kidding? It's from 1984. The whole set is selling for under $80. Besides, I can hear the gum moving around in there when I shake it.

Nice. All the cards are warped from age. I bet this pack was kept in a box in a basement or on a radiator somewhere. Plus there's a nice big wax stain on the back of Mike Smithson. Flip it over the pack and there's Houston Jimenez. Next it's Jerry Augustine, fat-faced Glenn Wilson, backup catcher Jeff Newman, Joe Beckwith, Dusty Baker (most likely my star of the pack), Dave Winfield (I stand corrected), Cliff Johnson (already touting the GWRBI--Johnson's claim to fame, if I remember correctly), The Venerable Max Venable, Rick Honeycutt, Checklist 1-132, Bob Clark, Odell Jones and Glenn Abbott.

Success Rate: 20%
My first pack of 1984 Topps was horrible.
And it all happened so fast.
I'll cherish it forever.

March 26, 2007

Card Notes - March 26

Escape From New York

I heard that they're going to remake Escape from New York, which is a total crying shame, because you just know that the new movie just won't have the same magic as the first--from Ernest Borgnine's aw shucks cabbie to Isaac Hayes' chandelier-on-the-hood Cadillac, that movie was fantastic in every way. Which got me thinking: what exactly will the incoming owners of Topps do with the company? The hobby's supposed to be on an upswing, and Topps deserves at least 50% of the credit for that (if not more), right? I can't walk ten feet in a big box retail store without salivating at the sight of a stack of blaster boxes of Heritage and Bowman Basketball Draft Picks, so you'd have to think marketing and distribution are doing their jobs to the fullest. Despite the competition, the buyouts, the lawsuits and the lean years, have the past 55 years or so been salad days at Topps? Are we only now getting to the real test of the relationship between company and collector? Just a few questions as I try to imagine a few new Snake Pliskins in New York.

Army of 792

If you had to choose sides right now, which would you choose: Topps or Upper Deck?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, really ever since I learned Ryan Howard chose Topps. It got me thinking: if by becoming a Topps spokesman, what if Howard would have to join the other Topps spokesmen and women on an island once a year where they would battle the spokesmen and women from Upper Deck in gladiator-style fights? Who do you think would win? As much as I love Topps, I'm guessing Upper Deck would win, simply because Barry Bonds is no longer a Topps spokesman and Alex Rodriguez can't win when it counts. Oh, and Dwyane Wade crunched out one of his limbs and Jay Z is not an athlete. That leaves Howard and David Wright taking on all of Upper Deck, and last time I checked, Upper Deck owned all the other players in the entire universe.

Anyway, these are a few tattoos that the Topps spokesmen would definitely sport if it were up to me.

Carded - March 26

Here's another player collection page. No frills, but it is all about Charlie Hough.

A Shrine to Charlie Hough

March 24, 2007

Carded - March 24

Scanning the new Beckett on my lunchbreak the other day...their cover story is on player collectors, but like so many other 'stories' published in the pages of Beckett nowadays, once you actually get to the story it's nothing more than a few graphs, some photos and maybe 200-300 words. Oh well. Besides, it seems that one of the qualifying factors for a great player collection for them is sum value of the cards, which seems to me like a needless statistic...maybe that figure is there just to give the rest of us perspective on how much the passion has consumed the collector.

I've always been a big Fred McGriff and Eddie Murray fan. McGriff because he was, for the most part, a classic over-looked superstar. Like most of the national media, I have a complete big-city, east-coast bias that does not include Toronto. If McGriff had played his career on the Yankees (by whom he was drafted) or the Red Sox, he'd have been forefront in the media conscience for the past twenty years. Instead, he played in fringe cities like Tampa Bay, Toronto, and National League towns like San Diego, Atlanta and Los Angeles. He could very well be the first Hall of Fame inductee with a rookie card worth less than ten dollars. I always liked Murray because he was tough. I liked Steve Carlton and Jim Rice for these same reasons.

But the one thing I never did was move my player collections to the Internet. Don't get me wrong, I wanted to. I just never found the energy. I never had the commitment. Luckily, there are others to fill the void. Here are a few great player collections, some I've always admired and others I just found today.

Collecting Ichiro We are talking a seriously high level of unintentional comedy here. But also a fairly large Ichiro collection. Good times will be had by all.

Thrill 22: The Will Clark Gallery This is one of my favorite sites. What else can you say? Clark was the reason so many little kids got hooked on cards in the first place. The Links page also has great listings for other player collections.

Mark Grace Collector I had heard of this collector a while ago, but just found the site this morning. Good to see he understands the necessity of including co-star cards in his collection (cards where player appears on another player's card).

Don West Really, this wouldn't be a list of player-related websites without the Don West website, as there was really no bigger player. I can't think of anyone else who could almost convince me to buy a 1976 SSPC set at 2AM...

March 22, 2007

Card Notes - March 22

Fashion Tips with Bernard King

Bernard either got a two-for-one at Glamour Shots when his daughter went in for her prom photos or he lost a bet. I’m hoping it’s the latter, but my gut is telling me he put a lot of thought into this getup. His stat line does say he’s a 13-year pro, so he must know what he’s doing.

Here’s hoping he got laid.

Also Starring… (Dream Team Edition)
Basketball cards are the second love of my collecting life. And to think, I have the proof that I bought Garbage Pail Kids back in 1986 instead of basketball cards. And I made a special trip to buy the GPKs! And sometimes I go back to that store in my dreams and still see that goddamn box of Fleer 1986-87 sitting on the counter at Mr. Big on Moody Street in Waltham, Massachusetts, and every time, in every dream, I still pick the pack of Garbage Pail Kids. No smarts…not even in my own dreams…

What makes basketball cards so great is that nine times out of ten the card will feature an action shot, which means you’ll not only get a photo of the featured player, but one that includes other players as well. This is almost an entirely foreign concept in baseball. (Which reminds me: Wouldn’t it be great if Topps put out a subset or an ultra-rare chase set called ‘Baseball’s Greatest Brawls’? It could be a ten card set, with a parallel relic set featuring a leaky shard of an actual battery thrown on the field at Yankee Stadium during a game against the Sox, a ripped swatch from a bloodied jersey, or maybe a piece of a chipped tooth? Then the back of the card could be headshots of all the players involved and what they said to reporters after the game, or what they were supposed to have said on the field that started everything (like Varitek telling A-Rod that his pitchers didn’t throw at .260 hitters). I think it would be great, and besides specials and team photo cards, Brawl cards are the only way you’ll ever get more than one or two guys on one baseball card).

That’s why it’s harder to get a common in a pack of basketball cards than you’d expect. Take these cards of Olden Polynice, Never Nervous Pervis Ellison and Larry Nance. You can get any one of these cards for almost a penny a card. The Polynice card also features a dejected looking Magic Johnson (that’s worth at least a penny if you’re a Celtics fan), Ellison is about to be blocked by Chief while Bird watches and Nance looks like he’s about to land on Jordan’s elbow if MJ isn’t careful. That’s three Dream Team alums, plus Robert Parish, all in co-starring roles. And there are literally thousands of cards as great as these, if not better, across the spectrum of all basketball cards ever produced—it’s just the nature of the game.

Take the case of another Dream Teamer, Patrick Ewing. Because Topps is based in New York, it seems like a no-brainer that the company would send their photographers to get photos at Madison Square Garden. Thus, I’ve counted Ewing on at least four other cards that are not his own in the 1992-93 Topps regular set. This card of Bill Cartwright is a good example of superstar co-stars, as Cartwright is decidedly forced to play fourth fiddle in this photo, what with Ewing, Jordan and playoff bunting on the overhangs also in the frame.

I guess the lesson to take away from this is that if you collect a certain basketball player, your collection is not complete if you don’t have all the cards on which that player co-stars. It’s a sad prospect for the completist, but also invigorating.

March 21, 2007

Card Notes – March 21

Search with Kevin…for his Father?

I read somewhere that there’s a new search engine called ‘Search with Kevin’. I don’t know if it’s one big practical joke that some corporation and their hot-shot ad agency are playing on K-Fed and the rest of the world, or if it’s for real. Regardless, I think I’ve found a guy who could very well be Federline’s father. And I didn’t need a search engine, either. I found him under a pile of shit in my closet.

Search With Kevin

Can’t Wait for Heritage ’70
A couple of months ago I found my cache of crudely hand-cut cards from Baseball Cards Magazine from the 1989 and 1990. If you got this magazine back then, you’ll remember that for a while they were including mini sheets of six and nine cards of current players in old Topps designs. I’m not sure how they got away with it at the time, unless Topps didn’t really care,

which may have very well been the case, because Topps didn’t start the Archives reprints line until 1991 (1953) and didn’t start Heritage until 2001. Anyway, I don’t know what happened to all of them, but the ones I have found all have great photos, really strong color, great backs and spotty (if completely representative of the time period) player choice. I especially like the ‘The Investment Advisor Says:’ on the back of the 1970-flavored cards. I’m glad I found these.

New Stuff

I too need a break from the Team Card Tournament. I’m going to have to reevaluate that monster, simply because my brain can’t process 800 to 1,000 words on each matchup. To fans of the TCT: don’t worry. It will be back, if in an abbreviated format. Just give me a few days to get me stuff together and figure it out. In the meantime, I have some new stuff to announce.

New Recurring Feature: Card Notes
Like The Fantastic Card of the Day, Card Critic Reviews and various Countdowns, Card Notes—or more likely shortened to ‘C-Notes'—will be a recurring feature on The Baseball Card Blog. This will be the place where I dump my notes, short pieces I can’t seem to flesh out into column length, and other fun stuff that doesn’t seem to fit into any other category. See the first Card Notes post later this evening.

Updated Links Bar
For the first time in what seems like over a year, I plan on updating the links section of the blog. I’m going to separate the links into three categories: card related, sports related and other. I will also try to include links to interviews I’ve done as Card Blog Ambassador (hey, that’s not a bad title), as well as places you might have seen the Blog.

Carded
This is another feature I’m adding, because as much as I love writing about baseball cards, there’s nothing I enjoy more than reading about baseball cards. Really, Carded is just another word for ‘link dump’, or links to stuff about cards that I’ve been reading lately.

March 19, 2007

Donruss Division: (1) 1985 NL All-Stars vs. (16) 1985 AL All-Stars

Donruss Division: (2) 1978 Phillies
vs. (15) 1972 Mets

Donruss Division: (3) 1977 White Sox vs. (14) 1973 Orioles

Donruss Division: (4) 1987 Tides vs. (13) 2006 Rockies

Donruss Division: (5) 1970 Braves vs. (12) 1976 Red Sox

Donruss Division: (6) 1970 Mets vs. (11) 2001 Red Sox

Donruss Division: (7) 2007 Orioles vs. (10) 1979 Orioles

Donruss Division: (8) 1967 Cubs vs. (9) 1965 Cubs

March 18, 2007

Fleer Division:
(8) 1977 Giants vs. (9) 12-Player Trade

Scoring: Two cards go head-to-head each scoring up to three points in a number of categories. The card with the highest point total at the end wins the match and advances.

• Teamwork
• Coach Attire
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

1977 Giants (8) vs. 12-Player Trade (9)

Teamwork Okay, so only ten of the twelve guys showed up for the photo of the 12-Player Trade, but those ten guys showed a lot of teamwork: they formed the conventional half-circle towards the camera, two of them are out in front on bended knee, and for the most part everybody’s smiling. And these are guys who were traded for each other. I’m going to award 2 ‘In A Pinch’ points for that. The Giants look well put-together, and there seem to be a lot of them in the frame. The only thing I can think of that would’ve made the photo better would’ve been if Sasquatch in the brown trash bag had stood on the back riser in the middle next to Big Bird, just to even things out back there. Otherwise, good job. 1977 Giants: 3 points | 12-Player Trade: 2 points

Coach Attire 12-Player Trade didn’t involve coaches, so no points are awarded. Though that would’ve been great, right? Two teams, swapping coaches mid-season. As for the Giants, the giant in the brown windbreaker is really overpowering the frame; I don’t quite know what to make of him. Was he an equipment manager that they put in the on deck circle in late innings to intimidate the opposing pitcher? Because they didn’t put either of the two guys on the right out there—they look more like bakers than Gorgs. 1977 Giants: 3 points | 12-Player Trade: 0 points

Uniforms Mid-Nineties uniforms were hurtin’. We didn’t know it at the time, because we were used to them, but they were ugly, and not in a late-Seventies way. They were ugly in a very corporate, brand-identity and clean and modern logo way. The Giants uni, on the other hand, looks like it’s on its last legs. 1977 Giants: 1 point | 12-Player Trade: 1 point

Background Did the Giants play all their home games on a field that was actually just cement painted to look like grass? The best part is that you can see the seams where they would lay the markings for the 49ers. The 12-Player Trade photo is interesting because it perfectly sums up Upper Deck’s Collector’s Choice product: fun, weird cards that give off a very cheap feeling; a set (built on trivia and smaller nuggets of information) for the younger collector with a very short attention span. They were sets where UD would test new ideas and if some worked that’s great and if others didn’t they didn’t care too much, they just wouldn’t do it again the next year. So then it’s not surprising that this photo has had its background tampered with. In fact, it would’ve been going against type for this photo to have a normal background. The pink/purple/puke color works—in context of the rest of the set—because of the rest of the wild things going on on the other cards. Remove it from that context though, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. 1977 Giants: 2 points | 12-Player Trade: 2 points

Personnel 1977 Giants: McCovey (HOF), Clark, Evans, Montefusco… 12-Player Trade: Bell, Plantier, Caminiti, plus the immortal Andujar Cedeno… 1977 Giants: 2 points | 12-Player Trade: 1 point

Floating Heads 12-Player Trade needs two floating heads for the math to work on this card. Because it’s lacking the necessary heads to match twelve representatives, I’m going to award negative 2 points. I’m going to award the Giants 2 points because while Joe Altobelli’s floating head does not constitute a religious experience, he does look like a Punch and Judy doll. And that’s got to count for something. 1977 Giants: 2 points | 12-Player Trade: - 2 points

Card Design Again, it’s 1977 versus the world, and the world loses. But it’s not like the world put up much of a fight this time: the 12-Player Trade design is not really that great. Oh sure, it’s doing some interesting things with type design, but type is only half of design, and we already talked about the photo. I’ll give it 2 points. 1977 Giants: 3 points | 12-Player Trade: 2 points

Photo Quality Not really a great shot of the Giants. Better shot of the 12-Player Trade. 1977 Giants: 1 point | 12-Player Trade: 2 points

Number of Players 10 players for the 12-Player Trade. No points awarded (it’s gotta be all or nothing). 37 Giants (including two actual giants). 1977 Giants: 2 points | 12-Player Trade: 0 points

Total Score: 1977 Giants 19 points
12-Player Trade 8 points

March 17, 2007

Fleer Division:
(7) 1977 Pirates vs. (10) 1776 Signers of Declaration of Independence

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head, each scoring up to three points in the following categories, where applicable. The card with the highest point total wins the matchup.

• Teamwork
• Coach Attire
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

1977 Pirates (7) vs. 1776 Signers (10)

Teamwork It’s ironic, but for the scene they’re portraying, the Signers seem to show very little sense towards conveying teamwork: I count at least three cliques, and that’s not including the man in the Stetson in the background and Jefferson observing in the corner like Kenesaw Landis. I will award them 2 points for all remembering their wigs and waistcoats. The Pirates almost run the gamut of arms-crossedness, but Al Oliver had to take a break. Oh well. I also like that the batboy has his arms crossed in a classic sulk pose. 1977 Pirates: 3 points | 1776 Signers: 2 points

Coach Attire Washington blends in with the rest of the team in the Signers pose, so I can’t really give him any special points for that. The Pirates trainers and front office guys look pretty standard conservative, so I’ll give them one point as well. I’ll award the Pirates one extra point because the trainer on the right looks like Howard Cosell. 1977 Pirates: 2 points | 1776 Signers: 1 point

Uniforms The Pirates uni was pretty standard issue through the Seventies. Extra point for yellow caps. Signers get no points for dressing like all men of upstanding citizenship in their day and age, but do get one point for wearing knee-high socks on game day. 1977 Pirates: 2 points | 1776 Signers: 1 point

Background Pirates get no points for empty stadium. Signers get three points for symmetry of doorways, gigantic emblem on the wall and historical importance. In that order. 1977 Pirates: 0 points | 1776 Signers: 3 points

Personnel 1977 Pirates: Stargell (HOF), Cobra, Candelaria, Reuss, Oliver, Zisk, Duffy Dyer, Hebner… 1776 Signers: Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, Franklin… 1977 Pirates: 2 points | 1776 Signers: 3 points

Floating Heads Really, this category comes down to which you like more: stars or pennants. I happen to think they both work. To the reader who brought up the point that this is The Baseball Card Blog, and that there’s no room for the Signers in a tournament of team cards, I ask them this: if Benjamin Rush’s floating head was presented in a pennant and the signers were shown standing in neat rows on risers in front of Independence Hall, would it be more of a team card than it is now? And what if on the back of the card it gave the signers stats and a blurb in reference to their record against the British? Would that be better? I think it works as is. I award one point for the stars around Rush’s head, one point for Rush’s slight smile and one point because it looks like he’s not wearing a wig. The Pirates get 3 points: one point for the pennant, one point because Chuck Tanner is 110 years old, and one point because I can’t tell if Tanner is smiling or about to ring for a nurse. 1977 Pirates: 3 points | 1776 Signers: 3 points

Card Design The Signers card isn’t that bad—but it’s no 1977 Topps team card. That ’77 design just gets better and better the more you see it, doesn’t it? Everything about it is clean. 1977 Pirates: 3 points | 1776 Signers: 2 points

Photo Quality Nice quality on the Pirates card, and there’s something going on there, because I can’t tell what the back row of Pirates are standing on; I don’t see a riser. No points for the Signers, as it’s a painting. 1977 Pirates: 2 points | 1776 Signers: 0 points

Number of Players 35 Pirates, including suits, coaches and the ghost of Chuck Tanner. 48 Signers in the frame. 2 points to the Pirates for having more players in the photo than there were cards in that year’s set. 3 points to the Signers for changing the world with less than fifty people in the frame. 1977 Pirates: 2 points | 1776 Signers: 3 points

Total Score: 1977 Pirates 19 points
1776 Signers 18 points

March 15, 2007

Fleer Division:
(6) 1987 Clippers vs. (11) 1973 Rangers

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in the following categories. Each card can score up to 3 points in each category.

• Teamwork Extra points for symmetry (even if entirely coincidental)
• Coach Attire Extra points for eccentricity and/or coordination
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads Extra points if heads constitute borderline religious experience
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

1987 Clippers (6) vs. 1973 Rangers (11)

Teamwork See, the Columbus Clippers understand: your tall guys go in the middle. Of course, it makes sense that they would get it. They are the NY Yankees AAA club (or at least they were at the time). They also have the arms-crossing thing down pat. The Rangers look like a buncha kids at summer camp. 1987 Clippers: 3 points | 1973 Rangers: 1 point

Coach Attire Speaking of summer camp, the Clippers have their counselor front and center, don’t they? All that’s missing is a whistle on a string around his neck. Also, and I know that batboys don’t really count as coaches, I like the hat on the batboy to the left and how it seems to float just above his head. The Rangers’ manager is the one with the batting glove on, in the middle of the team, and I spotted their two coaches: one’s fat in a white polo shirt, the other’s off to the right in a blue ringer tee. What’s up with that? 1987 Clippers: 2 points | 1973 Rangers: 2 points

Uniforms Those Clippers jerseys are ugly. The Rangers unis look weak, but the Rangers unis always looked weak until the mid-1990s. 1987 Clippers: 1 point | 1973 Rangers: 1 point

Background Let’s see: boring minor league stadium versus boring major league stadium…hmmm… 1987 Clippers: 1 point | 1973 Rangers: 1 point

Personnel 1987 Clippers: bunch of fresh-faced minor leaguers and over-the-hill Crash Davises… 1973 Rangers: Nobody Good… 1987 Clippers: 1 point | 1973 Rangers: 1 point

Card Design The Clippers card, like the other International League team cards mentioned here, doesn’t really have a design. The 1973 Rangers card does—it’s the 1973 design and it works its magic once again. 1987 Clippers: 1 point | 1973 Rangers: 3 points

Photo Quality I like the sun over the my-left-their-right shoulders in the Clippers’ photo, and the shot itself is of good quality. The Rangers’ photo ain’t so hot, but then again, neither are the Rangers, so there you go. 1987 Clippers: 3 points | 1973 Rangers: 1 point

Number of Players Clippers: 31. That’s low for a team photo, especially of a team that won the championship the year before. Rangers: 32. That’s also low, but the guys are so close to the camera that it seems like there’s more of them. 1987 Clippers: 2 points | 1973 Rangers: 2 points

World Champions The Clippers card denotes them as Governor’s Cup Winner, and in the International League that means they won the championship (right?). But, seeing as how they’re a minor league team, I’m only going to award half a point. 1987 Clippers: 0.5 points | 1973 Rangers: 0 points

Total Score: 1987 Clippers 14.5 points
1973 Rangers 12 points

Fleer Division:
(5) 1973 Astros vs. (12) 2006 Orioles

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head, scoring up to 3 points in each of the following categories (where applicable).

• Teamwork Extra points for symmetry (even if entirely coincidental)
• Coach Attire Extra points for eccentricity and/or coordination
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads Extra points if heads constitute borderline religious experience
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

1973 Astros (5) vs. 2006 Orioles (12)

Teamwork The Orioles just don’t get it. You put the tall guys on the outside of the row, not in the middle where they draw attention to themselves. Instead of clean rows the Orioles give us waves. Another thing about putting the tall players in the middle: if you split the Orioles in half down the middle, the guys on the left look like they’d clobber the guys on the right. Bad form all around. The Astros, on the other hand, are symmetrical without beating it over your head and everybody’s happy to be there (especially the front row, who look like they’re there for Astros Old Timer’s Day). 1973 Astros: 3 points | 2006 Orioles: 2 points

Coach Attire The O’s do the modern thing and put everybody in a uniform. The problem with the modern thing is that the modern thing is boring. 1 point awarded. If I could give more than three points to a team for Coach Attire, I’d give the Stros about five for this card. First of all, they got an Abe Saperstein look-alike to stand on the end to the left. Then they got one of the Astrodome engineers to appear in all white (probably an equipment manager or front office guy), complete with white clomper boots, and then—and this guy is the best one on the card—they got Marlon Brando circa On The Waterfrontto stand menacingly off to the right. All he’s missing is a whip and a cigar stub and he’d be what I imagine Chuck Connors’ character The Sarge from Airplane II: The Sequel looks like on the weekends. Ah, what the hell, I’ll break my own rules on this one. 1973 Astros: 5 points | 2006 Orioles: 1 point

Uniforms I like the Orioles unis, but couldn’t they have taken the photo in their black warm-up shirts? Something to make them look tougher. The Astros are wearing some of the dopiest uniforms I’ve ever seen, but it works. 1973 Astros: 3 points | 2006 Orioles: 2 points

Background A lot of readers pointed out that the Astros took their photo in a room under the Astrodome. Can we refer to it as a fallout shelter? Would that be okay? Because that’s what I think of when I see this card, and really, I can’t think of a weirder group of guys to be stuck with for all of eternity. The Orioles should have taken their photo on the fan alley behind right field where the Boog Powell rib shack is. Even better would’ve been to have Boog in the picture and everybody standing around with paper plates. Instead there’s another goddamn Jumbotron. At least they remembered to turn theirs on. 1973 Astros: 2 points | 2006 Orioles: 1 point

Personnel 1973 Astros: Lee May, Cedeno, Dierker, Reuss, Rader, Alou, JR Richard… 2006 Orioles: Mora, Roberts, Tejada, Ryan, Lopez… 1973 Astros: 2 points | 2006 Orioles: 2 points

Card Design As much as I dislike the 1973 design in terms of the regular player card, I think it services the team card well. There’s a nice, wide mouth for the photo, the white border isn’t intrusive and the team name is a little overwhelming but it’s usually in a color that complements the colors in the photo. It works well here. The 2006 design sucks. 1973 Astros: 2 points | 2006 Orioles: 1 point

Photo Quality For a new card, the Orioles photo isn’t outstanding. The Astros is also surprising in that it’s of much better quality than I’ve come to expect from early-1970s team photography. 1973 Astros: 2 points | 2006 Orioles: 1 point

Number of Players Orioles: 38 that we can see. I have a feeling that the green paneling in front of the seated first row that is made to look like the outfield wall is actually fake, so there may be the Oriole mascot down there…or Billy Ripken. Who knows. There are 34 Astros. 1973 Astros: 1 point | 2006 Orioles: 2 points

Total Score: 1973 Astros 20 points
2006 Orioles 12 points

Fleer Division:
(4) 1975 Red Sox vs. (13) 2006 Braves

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in the following categories, with each scoring up to three points in each category.

• Teamwork
• Coach Attire
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players

1975 Red Sox (4) vs. 2006 Braves (13)

Teamwork There is really no rhyme or reason to the Red Sox in this picture, except for the batboys. And the real winner of the four is the cross-legged one in the front on the left. Is he sulking? He’s in the goddamn team photo for the ’75 Red Sox! He better not let Carlton Fisk see him pouting or he’ll get punched in the stomach. The Braves are sporting some serious A Chorus Line symmetry, and I like how nearly everybody’s got a winning smile…even the guy on the right end of the second row, and it looks like he’s missing an arm. 1975 Red Sox: 3 points (no crying in baseball!) | 2006 Braves: 3 points

Coach Attire I bet Bobby Cox sleeps in his uniform on an air mattress under the bench in the dugout. And no matter how improbable that is, he gets 2 points. The Sox brass gets 3 points because they’re big, bulky, and I’m not sure who’s who. I also like Darrell Johnson, Mgr., squinting away in the corner. 1975 Red Sox: 3 points | 2006 Braves: 2 points

Uniforms Classic Sox, boring Braves. 1975 Red Sox: 3 points | 2006 Braves: 1 point

Background The only thing better than the Green Monster would have been the Red Sox raising a toast at the Eliot Lounge (or a series of shots of them getting tossed from the Cask’n’Flagon’ one by one). Who told the Braves that an unlit Jumbotron makes a quaint team photo backdrop? 1975 Red Sox: 3 points | 2006 Braves: 1 point

Personnel 1975 Red Sox: Tiant, Lee, Rice, Lynn, Fisk (HOF), Yaz (HOF), Evans, Carbo, Burleson, Doyle, Petrocelli… 2006 Braves: Hudson, Chipper, Smoltz, Andruw Jones, Giles… 1975 Red Sox: 3 points | 2006 Braves: 2 points

Floating Heads Finally, Darrell Johnson gives the Sox an edge. It’s about time, too, because he looks like he’s going to be sick. 1975 Red Sox: 1 point | 2006 Braves: 0 points

Card Design2006’s foil stamp actually makes this card better, if you can believe it. The off-colored 1975 design is great for this team card, and the floating head and semi-3D team name also give it a jolt. 1975 Red Sox: 3 points | 2006 Braves: 1 point

Photo Quality Braves finally rally for a few points, thanks to technology. The Sox photo ain’t so hot. 1975 Red Sox: 2 points | 2006 Braves: 3 points

Number of Players 40 Red Sox/34 Braves. 1975 Red Sox: 3 points | 2006 Braves: 1 point

Total Score: 1975 Red Sox 24 points
2006 Braves 14 points

Fleer Division:
(3) 2006 Rangers vs. (14) 1972 Twins

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in the following categories, with each scoring up to three points in each category.

• Teamwork
• Coach Attire
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players

2006 Rangers (3) vs. 1972 Twins (14)

Teamwork Those Rangers almost look like they have their hands on each other’s knees, don’t they? On the whole, they’re really put together. The Twins are the first team to do the crossed-arms thing all the way through the whole picture, batboys included. Hell, even their bats are crossed. 2006 Rangers: 3 points (for awkward touching) | 1972 Twins: 3 points

Coach Attire Both managers (Showalter and Rigney) are in their uniforms, so that’s no big deal. One point is given to the Twins trainers for fitting in with the players (I barely noticed them off to the right in their white shirts and Twins caps). 2006 Rangers: 1 point | 1972 Twins: 2 points

Uniforms Both are boring. 2006 Rangers: 1 point | 1972 Twins: 1 point

Background The Twins chose to go safe here, taking their photo in front of empty stands on an off-day or before a game. The Rangers, though, take this to another level. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Texas Rangers clubhouse. It’s classy, it’s gigantic, and apparently in use (judging from the clothes in the locker off to the left). I love it. 2006 Rangers: 3 points | 1972 Twins: 1 point

Personnel 2006 Rangers: Blalock, Teixeira, Soriano, Young, Cordero… 1972 Twins: Killebrew (HOF), Carew (HOF), Kaat, Blyleven, Oliva, Tovar, Jim Perry… 2006 Rangers: 1 point | 1972 Twins: 3 points

Card Design2006’s foil stamp really doesn’t work with this photo, which is a shame. The 1972 design works with any and every photo you throw at it, especially one where everybody’s trying to look tough (except the smilin’ Rod Carew). 2006 Rangers: 1 point | 1972 Twins: 3 points

Photo Quality That Ranger photo is one of the best I’ve ever seen, in terms of quality. In contrast, that Twins photo is one of the worst. 2006 Rangers: 3 points | 1972 Twins: 1 point

Number of Players 36 Rangers/37 Twins. It’s a toss up. 2006 Rangers: 2 points | 1972 Twins: 2 points

Total Score: 2006 Rangers 15 points
1972 Twins 16 points

March 14, 2007

Fleer Division:
(2) 1978 Brewers vs. (15) 1970 Expos

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in each of the eleven categories, with each cards scoring up to three points in each category.

• Teamwork Extra points for symmetry (even if entirely coincidental)
• Coach Attire Extra points for eccentricity and/or coordination
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads Extra points if heads constitute borderline religious experience
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

1978 Brewers (2) vs. 1970 Expos (15)

Teamwork The Expos get three points for flashing some outstanding Busby Berkeley-style dance tableau symmetry (first row, hands on knees; second row, arms crossed; third and forth rows, arms by sides, everybody flanked by two guys in baby blue warmup jackets and two other guys on bended knee). Not to be outdone, the Brewers also flash their considerable talent with the ingenious use of batboys and bats, not to mention that they look more like a collection of players than a real team. 1978 Brewers: 3 points | 1970 Expos: 3 points

Coach Attire Let’s not let the fact that the Brewers didn’t have a manager at the time get in the way here. You got the trainers and equipment managers amongst the players, and a gargantuan fella wearing number 33 with the face of George Bamberger and the body of an Ent from Lord of the Rings. I’m going to call him Frankenbrewer, say he’s a coach, and award a special point for the Brewers having pants on hand that fit him. I also like the trainer in the third row with the aviator sunglasses and the combover. 3 points for the Brewers. The Expos have two guys in Expos warm up jackets and Red from That 70’s Show in a three-piece suit. 1978 Brewers: 3 points | 1970 Expos: 3 points

Uniforms Haven’t we seen those Brewer jerseys somewhere else? Oh yeah…they’re almost exactly the same as the 1987 Maine Guides. It’s like the Brewers gave them to the Guides, the Guides steamed off the letters and ironed on their own. Expos take this category. 1978 Brewers: 1 point | 1970 Expos: 2 points

Background The Expos are in front of a makeshift batting cage, and the great part about it is that the cage doesn’t extend the length of the frame. That’s poor framing on the part of the photographer. The Brewers are in Milwaukee, where they should be, beer stein and all. 1978 Brewers: 3 points | 1970 Expos: 1 point

Personnel 1978 Brewers: Yount (HOF), Cooper, Haas, Bando, Lezcano, Hisle, a Frankenbrewer… 1970 Expos: Staub… 1978 Brewers: 2 points | 1970 Expos: 1 point

Card DesignBoth are serviceable designs, but don’t deserve more than one point. 1978 Brewers: 1 point | 1970 Expos: 1 point

Photo Quality The Brewer photo is a classic. The Expos in the photo show good composition, but the photo itself ain’t that great. 1978 Brewers: 3 points | 1970 Expos: 1 point

Number of Players Q: How many Expos does it take to lose 110 games? A: 43. Out of the 41 Brewers in the photo, 11 aren’t players. 1978 Brewers: 2 points | 1970 Expos: 3 points

Total Score: 1978 Brewers 18 points
1970 Expos 15 points

Fleer Division:
(1) 1972 Pirates vs. (16) 1968 Pirates

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in each of the eleven categories, with each card scoring up to three points in each category.

• Teamwork Extra points for symmetry (even if entirely coincidental)
• Coach Attire Extra points for eccentricity and/or coordination
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads Extra points if heads constitute borderline religious experience
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

1972 Pirates (1) vs. 1968 Pirates (16)

Teamwork Oh, what a difference four years makes: in the card from 1968, the Pirates barely look put together, like Murtaugh called them in from an intrasquad game to quickly have their photo taken. Some guys are still holding their gloves. By 1972 they’re a well-oiled, arm-crossing machine (even one of the equipment managers has his arms crossed. You know they mean business!). The 68ers are quirky, they’re sad. No question about this one. 1972 Pirates: 3 points | 1968 Pirates: 1 point

Coach Attire Here’s another funny thing about these two cards: the coaches don’t even look the same. The only guy who’s not in a uniform who looks the same is the guy dressed in solarium white, like after the photo’s done he’s going to wheel Joseph Cotton back to his room in Citizen Kane. That said, I am a fan of the front office guy on the 1968 card, the one in the is-it-blue/is-it-white sportcoat and black shirt off to the right. It seems like something Number 2 from Austin Powers would wear on the weekend. 1972 Pirates: 1 point | 1968 Pirates: 2 points

Uniforms OK, let me get this straight. Same team on both cards, and that team was one of the original teams. And the original teams hardly ever change their uniforms. So it’s pretty big then that we’re looking at two different eras of Pirate unis here. And really it comes down to which one you’re a fan of more. I happen to lean old school on this one, but I also really like the yellow caps, so I’m kind of torn. What the hell, 3 points apiece. 1972 Pirates: 3 points | 1968 Pirates: 3 points

Background The 1968 team is one of two places: broken down by the highway or in Spring Training. While I wish ‘broken down by the highway’ were true, and that the team photo idea came from an industrious traveling secretary trying to kill time, it’s more likely that this was taken during Pirate Spring Training. This brings up it’s own puzzling question: why are there deciduous trees in the background? Shouldn’t the Pirates train in a tropical climate? The 1972 team is in one place and one place only: in a ballpark, right before a game. This card cleans up in this category thanks to the not-quite-empty stands behind them. Nothing says ‘Team Spirit’ like fans trickling into the stadium. 1972 Pirates: 3 points | 1968 Pirates: 2 points

Personnel 1972 Pirates: Clemente (HOF), Stargell (HOF), Blass, Moose, Sanguillen, Hebner… 1968 Pirates: Clemente (HOF), Stargell (HOF), Mazeroski (HOF), Alou, Clendenon, Wills, Veale, Face… 1972 Pirates: 3 points | 1968 Pirates: 3 points

Card DesignYou really can’t get any better than 1972 Topps in terms of whacked out design, and the team cards from this set really do the design more justice than the player cards. Just beautiful, like a corporate version of the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover, only a few years too late. That’s not to say that the 1968 design is chopped liver. It’s not. The team cards from the 1968 set do a great job in mimicking television, with their rounded corners to mimic the cathode ray tube and the thatch border like that of the tv speaker. Both designs are winners, but one refers to it’s time period (1968) and one is just crazy out of its gourd (1972). 1972 Pirates: 3 points | 1968 Pirates: 1 point

Photo Quality I’m going with the 1972 card on this one, because the clarity is so good that you can almost make out the facial expressions of the fans in the stands behind the team. The only guy you can really identify in the 1968 card is Clemente (he’s next to the guy in the white mental asylum getup all the way to the left of the second row). 1972 Pirates: 2 points | 1968 Pirates: 1 point

Number of Players 1968’s got 34, which is about average. They get one point for being average. 1972’s got 37, which just above average. They get two points for being just above average (despite overcrowding the frame). 1972 Pirates: 2 points | 1968 Pirates: 1 point

World Champions The 1972 Pirates get a point because the card mentions that this team was the 1971 World Series champions. 1972 Pirates: 1 point | 1968 Pirates: 0 points

Total Score: 1972 Pirates 21 points
1968 Pirates 14 points

March 13, 2007

Sportflics Division: 8. 1973 Reds vs. 9. 1973 A's

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in a number of categories, each scoring up to 3 points in each per category. Extra points available where noted.

• Personnel
• Signature Quality
• Number of Players

1973 Reds (8) vs. 1973 As (9)

Personnel: Let’s be honest: who weren’t on these teams? These teams were dominant. One personified personality baseball, Charlie O. style, while the other was the working class, grind-out-the-wins that would really dominate mid-decade. 1973 Reds: Bench (HOF), Perez (HOF), Foster, Rose, Morgan (HOF), Gullett, Carroll, Tolan’n’Nolan… 1973 As: Jackson (HOF), Fingers (HOF), Hunter (HOF), Rudi, Bando, Campaneris, Tenace, Blue, Cepeda (HOF) 1973 Reds: 3 points | 1973 As: 3 points

Signature Quality: The Reds are showing off their best grammar school signatures, while the A’s are flaunting it, baby! The closest any of the Reds get to flaunting it is Johnny Bench’s big J, and even that’s not so big. It’s almost like they’re afraid someone will find out they sign real big and will hit them across the knuckles with a ruler. The A’s win this category hands down, not because Gene Tenace signs using his first name ‘Fury’, but because Jim Hunter signs with Catfish in quotation marks. 1973 Reds: 1 point | 1973 As: 3 points

Number of Players: Not all the players listed on the backs of these cards have their signatures on the front. That’s obvious on the A’s card, less so on the Reds, and that’s because the Reds really know how to fill a box. By my count I see 12 Reds signatures. Two of them signed with their full name, which makes the reader comment more believable that Topps used the signatures from player contracts. On the A’s card, I count 12 player signatures and again, two players signing with three names. We’re knotted up here: 12/2 and 12/2, but the real kicker is Bert Campaneris signing as Dagoberto Campaneris.
1973 Reds: 2 points | 1973 As: 3 points

Total Score: 1973 Reds: 6 points
1973 As: 9 points

Sportflics Division: 7. 2007 Reds
vs. 10. 2006 Cubs

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in each of the eleven categories, with the victor of each category winning a point. Extra points available where noted.

• Teamwork Extra points for symmetry (even if entirely coincidental)
• Coach Attire Extra points for eccentricity and/or coordination
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads Extra points if heads constitute borderline religious experience
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

2007 Reds (7) vs. 2006 Cubs (10)

Teamwork: The 2007 Reds are almost the ultimate in symmetry. They may present themselves like a wall of big red meanies, but there’s a hole—and it’s right in the front row. Everyone got the memo to clasp their hands in their lap, except the guy up in the right corner. Whoops. Jesus, even the sunlight is symmetrical. And I thought Marge Schott was in Hell… The Cubs aren’t symmetrical, but what the hell. At least they could’ve worked together to bribe the photographer to come a little closer. 2007 Reds: 3 points | 2006 Cubs: 1 point

Coach Attire: These newer team cards are really lacking in the Coach Attire department. Seeing as how most of the managers and coaches were once former players, and how there’s some policy against including trainers, batboys, front office, hot dog hawkers and men’s room attendants in the photos now, it’s hard to pick out who’s the bullpen catcher and who’s calling the shots. 2007 Reds: 0 points | 2006 Cubs: 0 points

Uniforms: If I’ve got one problem with the newer Reds home uniforms, it’s that they’re harking back to too many different eras. Why can’t they just be white with red sleeves and a red cap? Why do they have to have red pinstripes? And numbers on the front? At least with the Cubs you know what you’re getting: white home unis with a red and blue C. 2007 Reds: 1 point | 2006 Cubs: 2 points

Background: The Cubs are almost one with the background in this shot. They do score 2 points for the bleachers and ivy of Wrigley. As for the Reds, The Great American Ballpark is nice, though you’d never know it in this shot. It’s pretty stock and standard. But I’ll be damned about that symmetrical sunlight. That’s almost too good to be true. 2007 Reds: 3 points | 2006 Cubs: 2 points

Personnel: 2007 Reds: Arroyo, Dunn, Smilin’ Ken Griffey, Jr.… 2006 Cubs: Baker, Alou, Nomar, Maddux, Wood, A-Ram... 2007 Reds: 2 points | 2006 Cubs: 2 points (where’s Mark Prior?)

Card Design: The new 2007 Topps cards really don’t do too much for me, but the black borders and little boxes work well for this team card. I’m a fan of black and red. 2 points awarded. The Cubs card is from the 2006 Heritage set and is based on the 1957 Topps design. 3 points awarded. I like the players’ names on the front, and the lack of a black band anywhere. 2007 Reds: 2 points | 2006 Cubs: 3 points

Photo Quality: The Reds photo is thoroughly professional. I can almost see five or six photo assistants with light diffusers standing behind the camera. I don’t know what to say about the Cubs photo, except that the photographer probably won’t be back next year. 2007 Reds: 2 points | 2006 Cubs: 1 point

Number of Players: I count 37 Reds and 43 Cubs…holy crap. 43 Cubs! Now I see why they were photographed so far away. Cubs in a landslide. 2007 Reds: 1 point | 2006 Cubs: 3 points

Total Score: 2007 Reds: 14 points
2006 Cubs: 14 points

After regulation, it looks like we’ll have to decide this one on the Intangibles once again. Each card has something about them that, upon closer examination, makes them what they are. The Cubs have won the coin toss and they elect to go first.

Because the team was photographed so goddamn far away means no black band across the front row to block out the batboy. So that means that either the fella crouching off to the left is a honest-to-goodness Cubs batboy (one of Baker’s eldest?), a bullpen catcher, or just a guy who likes to crouch. I’m not sure, but for hope’s sake I’m going with batboy. And that’s what’s most awesome about this card: the world couldn’t enjoy another incompetent Topps design because of the work of an incompetent photographer.

The Cincinnati Reds have been a facial hair-less team since before the ice age. And despite them constructing a near-perfect cheerleader pyramid of symmetry, I can count more than one face with facial hair. And while it doesn’t exactly make me like the card less, I feel like if the team wants to abandon the straight-laced conservativeness that is Cincinnati, they ought to either all have huge beards or they can just forget it. So the intangible for this card is actually a negative, because the more you look at the perfect trapezoid of Cincinnati Reds, the more problems you notice. Too bad.

2006 Cubs: 3 points | 2007 Reds: -1 point

I was really pulling for the Reds, but you can’t deny a little thing called sheer incompetence.

Total Score: 2007 Reds: 13 points
2006 Cubs: 17 points

Sportflics Division: 6. 1973 Cubs vs.
11. 1978 Dodgers

Sportflics Division: 5. 2006 Astros vs. 12. 1974 Pirates

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in each of the eleven categories, with the victor of each category winning a point. Extra points available where noted.

• Teamwork Extra points for symmetry (even if entirely coincidental)
• Coach Attire Extra points for eccentricity and/or coordination
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads Extra points if heads constitute borderline religious experience
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

2006 Astros (5) vs. 1974 Pirates (12)

Teamwork: The Astros get a point for fighting the urge to spread out across that mammoth expanse of empty seats. I’ll give them a point for an inventive use of symmetry, since the guy on either end of the third row looks out of place…but only until you realize that they both look out of place, and then it works. The Pirates get a point for looking rag-taggish and tough. They don’t get anything beyond that, though, because two guys in the back didn’t get the memo to cross their arms (Christ, even the batboy was in on it), and it doesn’t take a genius to line up your two gigantic guys on either end of the back row, like pillars. Instead they stick out like afterthoughts. 2006 Astros: 2 points | 1974 Pirates: 1 point

Coach Attire: Phil Garner looks about as spry as he did in his playing days, so I don’t even know if I should award the Astros a point for that. The Pirates clean up on this one, with Fredo from The Godfather without a cap all the way to the left, Elton John in a snazzy sportsuit all the way to the right, and a Red Auerbach wannabe, balding with hornrims in amongst the players. 2006 Astros: 1 point | 1974 Pirates: 3 points

Uniforms: Neither uniform is really all that inspiring. Oh, sure, the Pirates is a classic, and they get a point for that. I’ll also give them a point for the yellow hats, but that’s where this category ends. 2006 Astros: 1 point | 1974 Pirates: 2 points

Background: The Pirates are posed in Three Rivers Stadium, which sucks turf. And I don’t even think that’s a real phrase, but it’s quite descriptive in this instance. They might as well be out in a parking lot behind a warehouse. The Astros are caught somewhere between the ‘Real World’ and ‘The Matrix’. You know that scene where Neo and Trinity need to find machine guns and all these guns come zooming out of nowhere? Well, that’s where the Astros are, only replace ‘guns’ with ‘seats’. 2006 Astros: 2 points | 1974 Pirates: 0 points (nostalgia for 3 Rivers be damned)

Personnel: 2006 Astros: Clemens, Berkman, Biggio, Bagwell, Oswalt, Pettitte, Ensberg… 1974 Pirates: Stargell (HOF), Oliver, Sanguillen, Zisk, Hebner, Reuss, Murtaugh... 2006 Astros: 2 points | 1974 Pirates: 2 points

Card Design: Neither card excels in terms of design. In fact, I think both these cards succeed in their own ways despite their designs. If I had to choose a winner though, I’d go with the Pirates card. As much as I dislike the 1974 look, it is clean, to the point and not marred by various logos, foil-stamping and fake ill-begotten walls protecting the identity of whoever it is down there. 2006 Astros: 0 points | 1974 Pirates: 1 point

Photo Quality: Both get the job done. The Astros photo is obviously professional. The Pirates photo looks a professional lined them up and then hit the timer on his Instamatic. 2006 Astros: 1 point | 1974 Pirates: 1 point

Number of Players: I count 34 Astros, though again, because of the fake wall, that can’t stand as the official count. They could have fifty kids down there, or stacks and stacks of stolen dvd players, for all we know. For the Pirates, I count 33, and that’s including the hangers-on and the cross-legged batboy up front. 2006 Astros: 1 point | 1974 Pirates: 1 point

Total Score: 2006 Astros: 10 points
1974 Pirates: 11 points

It’s another first-round upset in the Sportflics Division as the 12th Ranked 1974 Pirates pull out a squeaker!

March 12, 2007

Sportflics Division: 4. 1978 Indians vs. 13. 2006 Tigers

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in each of the eleven categories, with the victor of each category winning a point. Extra points available where noted.

• Teamwork Extra points for symmetry (even if entirely coincidental)
• Coach Attire Extra points for eccentricity and/or coordination
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads Extra points if heads constitute borderline religious experience
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

1978 Indians (4) vs. 2006 Tigers (13)

Teamwork: There’s no symmetry in either photo, but that’s okay, because neither photo calls for it. The Tigers compose themselves well into three step-like rows, while the Indians are set up almost like they want to make sure you can read their uniforms. Plus, just about everybody’s standing in the Indians’ shot, so that’s something. The only guy who really looks out of place is the little off at the left end, and I think that might be Larvell Blanks. They probably didn’t want to ask him to lay across the front. 1978 Indians: 3 points (for standing) | 2006 Tigers: 2 points

Coach Attire: I can describe the Indians’ coach/front office guys attire in two words: Muted. Tasteful. Is that guy with the striped tie really Sid Caesar? Wait a minute, two of those guys have striped ties. I just thought of a third word: Yikes. Indians in a landslide, and we haven’t even gotten to the gas station attendant in the lower left corner in the kimono top. 1978 Indians: 3 points | 2006 Tigers: 1 point

Uniforms: We’re talking about two of the most classic baseball uniforms of the Twentieth Century here, and frankly, I don’t if I’m up to it. You could write a dissertation on the Indians uniform alone. I will say one thing, though: it could just be my imagination, but I think the guy to the very right in the top row of the Indians picture is wearing a batting helmet. Is that so if he falls off the riser he won’t hurt himself? Chalk up another point for the tribe. 1978 Indians: 3 points | 2006 Tigers: 3 points

Background: The Tigers are in Comerica, and while that’s nice, seeing how it’s a monstrous park, the Indians are closer to the camera, almost crowded around it as if huddled for warmth, because it looks like a strong wind could gust right through that old park their in. 1978 Indians: 2 points | 2006 Tigers: 1 point

Personnel: 1978 Indians: Eckersley (HOF), Manning, Buddy Bell, Bibby, Blanks, Bochte, Lowenstein…Lowenstein…. 2006 Tigers: Gibby, Trammell, Parrish, Pudge Rodriguez, Nook Logan, Shelton, Monroe, a bunch of others. 1978 Indians: 2 points | 2006 Tigers: 1 point

Card Design: The Indians card is clean, with just the color band within the white border and the scripty team name to keep it within the 1978 design. The Tigers card is from the 2006 Topps Heritage set, and therefore modeled on the 1957 set. It’s a nice card with a nice design. Too bad about that gigantic black bar across the card that practically obliterates the first row, creating a bad cut across a few of the guys in the first row. That black band costs this card at least one design point. 1978 Indians: 1 point | 2006 Tigers: 1 point

Photo Quality: Like other team card photos from the late Seventies, the Indians photo isn’t bad. You can tell who’s who, which is a huge step up from the cards from the late Sixties and early Seventies. You’d think then that the trend would continue and the 2006 Tigers card would feature pinpoint accurate photography, but that’s not the case. The photo’s just not that great. For one thing, the team’s posed too far away. Edge: Indians. 1978 Indians: 2 points | 2006 Tigers: 1 point

Number of Players: Well, you can see 39 different players and coaches in the Tigers card, and who knows who or what lurks underneath that black band. Kirk Gibson could’ve brought a live tiger to the ballpark that day, but the world will never know. The Indians don’t skimp either, fitting 36 assorted individuals into the frame. Edge? Hard to say. The Indians definitely have room for a few batboys, and the Tigers don’t want you to look behind the curtain. 1978 Indians: 2 points | 2006 Tigers: 2 points

Total Score: 1978 Indians: 18 points
2006 Tigers: 12 points

Sportflics Division: 3. 1967 Reds vs. 14. 1987 Guides

Sportflics Division: 2. 1966 Braves vs.
15. 1987 Chiefs

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in each of the eleven categories, with the victor of each category winning a point. Extra points available where noted.

• Teamwork Extra points for symmetry (even if entirely coincidental)
• Coach Attire Extra points for eccentricity and/or coordination
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads Extra points if heads constitute borderline religious experience
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

1966 Braves (2) vs. 1987 Chiefs (15)

Teamwork: This category is won right off the bat by the underdog Chiefs. Neither team is showing a strong understanding of the word ‘symmetry’, but at least the Chiefs appear to be trying. The Braves are doomed by a front row without enough bench, and a back row too far around to the right. To really lock it up all the Chiefs had to do was have the guy in the blue leisure sports coat swap spots with the guy to his left. Then it would’ve been perfect. 1987 Chiefs: 2 points | 1966 Braves: 1 point

Coach Attire: Though you can’t deny a fat man in a brown trash bag, the Chiefs edge out another early category, this one based on the eccentricity of allowing some front office guys in the photo in shirt sleeves and clip-on ties. I especially like the blue blazer and jeans ensemble the old guy in the front row is sporting. He better watch out—that’s one or two steps away from a Syracuse Tuxedo. 1987 Chiefs: 2 points | 1966 Braves: 1 point

Uniforms: The Braves unis of the mid Sixties were pretty lame and boring. Actually, all unis (with the exception of the Cardinals and Colt .45s) during the mid-Sixties were pretty boring. So it’s no contest, then, and the Chiefs take this one easily. Extra point awarded to the Chiefs for name no longer used. The team is now known as the Skychiefs. 1987 Chiefs: 2 points | 1966 Braves: 0 points

Background: If you haven’t guessed it, I have ties to the Syracuse area (I attended Syracuse University from 1997 to 2001), and if you’ve never been to a game at the Skychief’s park, you are really missing something. First of all, it’s way the hell out by the Carousel Mall (if memory serves me correct). Second, it’s in a marsh. Third, it’s always freezing, no matter the time of year. So while I love me some yellow fever with that 1966 Braves background, the Chiefs pull another stunner. Simply put: how can you vote against a background that features ads for cigarettes, beer and playing the lottery? That sounds like Syracuse to me. 1987 Chiefs: 3 points | 1966 Braves: 2 points

Personnel: 1966 Braves: Aaron (HOF), Mathews (HOF), Niekro (HOF), 24-game winner Tony Cloninger. 1987 Chiefs: I could be blind, but #30 looks a helluva lot like David Wells. 1966 Braves: 3 points | 1987 Chiefs: 1 point

Card Design: Neither card hits a home run in the design department, but at least the Braves card has more points of reference to the rest of the set: the diagonal band in the upper left; the band across the bottom; the lousy photo quality (whoops, wrong category). The Chiefs card has no design to speak of. 1966 Braves: 2 points | 1987 Chiefs: 0 points

Photo Quality: That Braves card might as well not even have a photo, it’s so bad. It looks like they clipped Hank Aaron’s head to do a proper silhouette for the background, but that’s just wrong. The Chiefs card is a clean, serviceable photo. Nothing flashy. 1987 Chiefs: 1 point | 1966 Braves: 0 points

Number of Players: The Chiefs squeeze 29 players/coaches/front office guys into what is really a medium shot. The Braves have more of a panoramic palette, and they get 33 players and coaches and one child (who is obviously not a batboy). 1966 Braves: 1 point | 1987 Chiefs: 1 point

Special Notation of Futility: Fifth place is nothing to be happy about. That’s pretty goddamn mediocre, even if they did win 86 games. No wonder they have a child in the shot. Lucky for the Chiefs, they didn’t have to put their record on the front of the card (68 – 72). My God, it’s almost another push. 1966 Braves: 2 points | 1987 Chiefs: 0 points

Total Score: 1966 Braves: 12 points
1987 Chiefs: 12 points

Holy geez, it’s a tie! Looks like it’s time to go to the Intangibles category. Each card has one thing that adds to its greatness. The Braves have won the coin toss, so they’ll go first.

There’s something fantastic about the bat boy having a place on the team card. But sometimes you want more than that. Sometimes, bat boys aren’t enough, you know? Bat boys as a genre of baseball type get tired—they get stale. What’s really hip is getting little kids in the shot, and not just any little kids, but little kids in little suits and ties. A little blond child of the corn kid in a sweater and tie that has nothing to do with anything—that’s what makes this card so great.

Convincing, convincing. The Chiefs are next. The two guys who flank either side of row two, they’re either trainers or equipment managers or neither or both. But whatever they are, they are not smiling, because they know what’s up: players come and go, the owners make money and live in the big houses on James Street and in Cazenovia, but as long as the sun goes up in the morning, there will be jocks to wash and flies to shag. And neither of them can think of a lousier place to do it than Syracuse, New York.
Intangibles: 1987 Chiefs: 3 points | 1966 Braves: 2.5 points

That little kid really is out of left field, but you can’t deny the depressing locale and general pluckiness of the 1987 Syracuse Chiefs.

Total Score: 1987 Chiefs: 15 points
1966 Braves: 14.5 points

Sportflics Division: 1. 1977 Red Sox vs. 16. 2001 Yankees

Scoring: The two cards go head-to-head in each of the eleven categories, with the victor of each category winning a point. Extra points available where noted.

• Teamwork Extra points for symmetry (even if entirely coincidental)
• Coach Attire Extra points for eccentricity and/or coordination
• Uniforms
• Background
• Personnel
• Floating Heads Extra points if heads constitute borderline religious experience
• Card Design
• Photo Quality
• Number of Players
• Special Notation of Futility
• World Champions

1977 Red Sox (1) vs. 2001 Yankees (16)

Let’s start at the top, with the Teamwork category. The Yankees score an early point with their cross-armed front row, but then that point is quietly halved when it appears that two guys in the second row are also crossing their arms, causing some design confusion. It doesn’t make the team look tougher—it makes them look like they think no one will notice. Next, both cards score points for half-assed attempts at symmetry, with the Sox at least turning their bodies in left and right to create a center. The Yankees third and fourth rows look like they don’t know how to follow directions. Finally, the Sox card scores a point for two players sitting cross-legged on the ground. I don’t think either of them are batboys, especially since the one on the right has a mustache and looks a lot like Bill Campbell. Teamwork category: 1977 Red Sox: 2 2001 Yankees: 1.5

Coach Attire Torre, Stottlemyre and Zimmer are all splayed out in their ill-fitting pinstripes…but they are coordinated and blend in with the rest of team. 2 points are awarded, because fitting in to a point of becoming non-descript and letting your actions speak for you is what being a Yankee is all about, right? The Red Sox card also features the Gerbil, and he’s also in a Sox cap, so 1 point for him. The Sox coaches appear to be in the front row, also in their uniforms, and they blend in well. 1 point for them. The real kicker, though, is that the three trainers/groundskeepers/Boston mobsters pictured are all wearing white, like they work in a mental asylum. One point is definitely awarded for that. I even think their belts match. If I could give more than three points in one category, I’d do it for Manny, Moe and Jack here. Coach Attire category: 1977 Red Sox: 3 2001 Yankees: 2

Uniforms This isn’t fair for me to judge. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Red Sox fan. Of course I’m going to say Red Sox here. But the historical fan in me must give two points to both sides, simply because they are about as iconic as you can get. Even though the Sox uni is from another era, you could make the case that the Yankees uni is timeless (since it really hasn’t changed since they changed their name from the Highlanders). I will, however, give an extra point to the Sox for the red hats. Uniform category: 1977 Red Sox: 3 2001 Yankees: 2

Background Yankees take this category because it’s obvious they’re in Yankee Stadium. I’m not quite sure where the Red Sox are (they usually have their team photo taken in front of the Monster). 1 point is awarded to the Yankees, because while it’s true that it’s the House that Ruth Built (and Reggie Re-Modeled), I’m not quite sure which part. Background category: 2001 Yankees: 1 1977 Red Sox: 0

Personnel Red Sox: Yaz (HOF), Tiant, Fisk (HOF), Jenkins (HOF), Rice, Lynn, The Rooster, The Gerbil, The Spaceman, Dewey and Butch Hobson. Yankees: Torre, Zimmer, Jeter, Soriano, Tino Martinez and a buncha other guys that I can’t tell who they are from the chrome. Personnel category: 1977 Red Sox: 3 2001 Yankees: 2

Floating Heads The Red Sox card not only features Zim’s pennant-waving headshot that was inherent to the 1977 team card design, but it has three floating heads, evenly spaced along the top of the frame: Yaz, Spaceman Bill Lee and Butch Hobson—The Father, The Son and the Holy Cokehead (as far as the 1977 Red Sox were concerned). Floating Heads category: 1977 Red Sox: 3 2001 Yankees: 0

Card Design This is another highly subjective category. If you like the 1977 regular design (built around the pennant), then you’ll like the team card. If you like the dark green of 2001 (one of Topps’ gems from between 1997 and 2002), then you’ll root for the Yankees card. I like both, but in this instance I’m going with the 1977 Red Sox card. Here’s why (I’ll keep it quick): the point of a team card is to see who’s on the team, which the 1977 Sox card does, almost to a ‘T’ (see the Floating Head category above). The 2001 Yankees card has a chrome-like sheen, making it difficult at certain angles to view. It also has too many logos; I don’t know where to look. Card Design category: 1977 Red Sox: 2 2001 Yankees: 1

Photo Quality The 1977 Red Sox card is disqualified, because I don’t think it’s a photo at all—I think it’s a painting from a photo. That would explain the bizarre background, the ease in which the floating heads were added, and the shit-eating grin of the cross-legged player up in the front left corner. The Yankees photo is not great (it looks like it was taken in low light), but at least it’s a photo. Photo Quality category: 2001 Yankees: 1 1977 Red Sox: 0

Number of Players The Yankees card gets 2 points for cramming in 42 players and coaches. The Sox card gets 1 point for the more mundane 34 players and coaches in the actual framed shot. Number of Players category: 2001 Yankees: 2 1977 Red Sox: 1

World Champions The Yankees get a point because the card mentions that this team was the 2000 World Series champions. World Champions category: 2001 Yankees: 1 1977 Red Sox: 0

Total Score: 1977 Red Sox 17.0 points
2001 Yankees 13.5 points

March 11, 2007

Card Critic: Topps Heritage ’58

How many more years can Topps do the Heritage line? You have to think they’ll do it as long as it makes them money, right? Or is it more of a question of design? I’d like to think it’s the latter, that at a certain point they’d stop (after the well of classic design runs dry). So how many more years? Well, they’re set for now, because this set is almost flawless, a huge improvement from last year’s Heritage ’57 (and I’ve always been a much bigger fan of the 1957 design than 1958). Topps had stellar design years in 1959, 1960 (to a certain degree), 1963, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1977, 1978…but Upper Deck compromised more than a few of those years with their own rip-off Vintage line, and do we really need or want Heritage ’78?

This set—one of the strongest Heritage sets in years—represents Topps at the top of their design arc of the 1950s-1960s. Gone are the unneeded (and historically inaccurate) action poses. Instead: lots of close-ups and medium close-ups. Now I know beyond a doubt that not only does Jeff Weaver look exactly like Zach from Gilmore Girls, but he will probably fight you if you tell him. Gone is the washed-out photography that seriously marred last year’s Heritage ’57 set. Taking their places are strong colors: from the better-quality photography to the iconic solid color background; even the backs feel stronger than last year’s. The deep red may be a little hard to read in low light, but for some reason when I read them I get the strongest urge to learn how to chew tobacco. This is also odd, because I’ve always considered 1958’s design to be the most elemental Topps ever produced, almost to the flash-card degree. Like all great art, it’s all things to all people: elegant, abstract, simple, international, clean, crisp, modern, and yet I find it very pre-school (I think it would be fascinating to track down some of the old Topps designers and have them explain how they went from the almost no-design design of 1958 to the ultra modern, beatnik, jazz-record-and-advertising design of 1959. The two years couldn’t be more different. I almost expect the explanation to be that there was a change in art department leadership). Because today’s Topps designers didn’t muck around with the base card design (or any aspect thereof), it works.

As I said before, I’ve always been a bigger fan of the years around 1958 than 1958 itself. Maybe that’s because I’ve always found the design so basic, maybe because my first 1958 cards were rain-soaked commons purchased in an album at an antique store for $10 (I was really more concerned with the non-rain-soaked 1965 Frank Robinson in the same album), so I never appreciated them much. Only in the past year have I really started to discover the beauty of this set. Starting with the stellar All-Star subset (Topps has never done better), re-created beautifully in Heritage ’58—even on the obligatory non-superstar American League second baseman card of Sweet Loretta. The only thing missing was Topps getting the rights from the now-defunct Sport Magazine to use their name on the card, like in the original, because I think everybody remembers the sham that was Topps Magazine.

The card that really made me appreciate the 1958 set was the black-backgrounded Pete Whisenant (one of only six black backgrounds). He’s just a common from the Reds, but that black background kicks ass. Anyway, when I caved and bought a box of this year’s set, I got this card of Aaron Rowand in one of my first packs. All I could think of was, Yeah! Black background! Other nice little things:

• White borders on the special cards I haven’t seen that thick a border since Eddie Murray’s 1988 Record Breaker.
• Then & Now insert set This is one insert set where Topps rarely fails. They have nice pairings, decent design, and it almost feels like it could be a subset rather than an insert set.

• Tasteful airbrushing I can’t believe I just used that phrase, but it’s true. I’m not entirely sure if J.D. Drew really ever made it on to the Red Sox, but his card is pretty good. That’s not to say that all the airbrushing is great; that would be too good to be true. Ronnie Belliard’s hat is made out of frosting, and I’m not sure if those braids are his, either.

Of course, Topps makes a few blunders with this set (this wouldn’t be a Topps set without a few glaring bad decisions), but lucky for them most of those bad decisions are limited to the insert sets. Starting with the Flashbacks set.

They should really do a design overhaul on this one, and while they’re at it, they should re-evaluate where they’re getting their images. This one of Kaline is obviously taken off his 1967 card. Not even the right decade! How dumb do they think we are?

Also, when are they going to put the Chrome and Refractor insert parallel sets to bed? These sets feel over-the-hill to me. Am I the only one who’s not thrilled to get one of these in his pack? I feel like I’m just getting one less card. I’m also less than thrilled with the Home Run cards of Mantle and Rodriguez.

At least in the Mantle set’s defense, it commemorates his 1958 home run title and it’s printed on the same stock as the set, so it sort of fits. But the Rodriguez cards have nothing to do with anything, plus they are printed on thin glossy stock. They feel out of place in Heritage packs, like Topps got the target audience wrong. They’re as bad and feel as worthless as the Hobby Masters from last year’s Series 2 hobby packs.

Rounding out the insert sets (that you have a decent shot in finding in a box) is the New Age Performers set. In years past, this insert set has boasted consistently good design. Unfortunately, that streak ends with this set. The starburst, the weak color palette, the squeezed serif type across the top—it all makes for a bad front. The backs are nice, but no one is going to put these in nine-pocket pages with backs facing out. Too bad.

It’s been a long, cold winter in New York, and I’m a pretty pessimistic guy, but we just got an extra hour of sunlight today, Spring is right around the corner, and for the all crap that Topps has unloaded on us in the past week or so, this year’s Heritage set is pretty great. Truthfully, I’m in the mood for collecting a set, but there’s only

one thing holding me back from going for the master set (I’m 11 cards shy of the master Heritage ’54 set), and it’s this: in 1958, card #273 featured Hal Smith of the Cardinals. Smith, possibly to stem the tide of questions about who was who between the two Hal Smith’s, possibly because he was just having fun or was out of his mind, had his photo taken with his mask on. It’s one of the greatest cards ever. He’s even giving a sign, which to a little boy might look like he’s gesturing inappropriately. I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure he’s smiling, and it sure as hell is creepy. That’s why I’m crossing my fingers that there’s a card of Joe Mauer or Jason Varitek with their mask and pads on, hopefully giving an equally inappropriate-looking sign. Then I’ll know it’s okay to dive in head-first.