Monday, August 22, 2016

BIg City Topps GIVEAWAY

As most of you are aware, I am a lawyer. I make my living on the fine print. Whether it is reading boilerplate language in contracts that is boilerplate only until it is not or being "that guy" and reading all the documents when we closed on our house, I literally have to read the fine print.

What does that mean though? 

To me, reading the fine print is something I do from time to time to see the ridiculous disclaimers that other lawyers have written. It's a professional courtesy, I suppose.



Kind of like that old joke about sharks and professional courtesy.

Anyway, I don't know how many people were interested in the topic I raised on Saturday in my "Big City Topps" post and commented solely because the topic was interesting and how many people read the fine print below the video of "Big City Nights" by the Scorpions.  

 

For those of you who need glasses, it says, "This is also a contest post -- I'll put everyone who answers into a randomizer and send something special for your collecting interests your way to the winner."

So, yeah, forgive the poor grammar. That sentence should probably be taken outside and shot. But, I promised a contest, and a contest winner is what comes after a contest.

I had 21 comments that came from 15 different people. While some posts simply provided the blog-comment version of "Amen," others came through with very thought provoking posts. One of the more interesting comments came from Night Owl, who basically said, "well, if your team gets good enough, you'll get plenty of cards." 

Actually, he said something that I took a little personally -- though not in a "you just pissed me off" personally kind of way. He said, "[t]he noisiest and spendiest collectors get the most attention because their wallet shoulds the loudest. And you know who aren't noisy or spendy? Rays and Marlins fans. And, apparently, maybe Brewers fans, according to what you're seeing from Topps." He also said that Milwaukee simply needs to be a better team for Topps to take interest

I take umbrage with those points on two levels. First, I worry that I'm too shrill sometimes ... especially on Twitter. I'll go on rants -- often influenced by Topps's selections for the Topps Now cards that I'm dying to drop my $10 a card on but which Topps pretty much says, "shut up--you don't matter" to Brewers fans. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Sooz's husband blocked me because I'm so obnoxious about that.

I can't think of any other reason why, because, for the life of me, I don't think I've ever interacted with the guy.

The other point comes from 2012. The Brewers were coming off getting to the National League Championship Series after winning the NL Central. Topps, as always, printed thousands of cards -- 95,067 to be exact. Of those, 6675 were in the "main" sets, according to Beckett. Again, a reminder that the average team should have 3.3% of the cards issued to be "equivalent." That would be about 220 cards for the average team.

And the numbers were? The AL East champion Yankees got 388 cards, the World Series runners-up Texas Rangers had 272, the nowhere near the playoffs but 2010 & 2012 World Series champ Giants had 260, the 2011 World Series champion Cardinals 259, the NL East champion Phillies 258, and the 3d place in the AL East Red Sox 257.

The NL Central Champion Brewers that year had 222 cards -- just above the 73-89 Rockies at 217 and the AL Wild Card Rays at 213. The lowest numbers? The Houston Astros -- in the midst of their dire years that led to Alex Bregman, etc. being drafted and just before their switch to the AL -- had just 108 -- 2 more cards than they had losses the previous year. The Padres had 123, and the Chicago teams were tied at 157 apiece. So, yes, being a better team helped get more cards.

And yet, those numbers still don't look right, and just because the Astros were bad doesn't mean that their fans didn't deserve cards of their team in the main sets.

I'm not saying Night Owl is wrong by any stretch of the imagination. I just think that excess -- and the cards that go with winning -- should be pushed more into inserts and less into main sets.

Oh, and one more point raised by Brett Alan (welcome, by the way!): in 1979 and according to Beckett by searching for "1979 Topps," Topps made a total of 761 cards for the entire year. Topps is credited with making 38 Yankees cards that year. They made only 26 cards for one team only (and that was the fewest overall that they made). Guess which team got only 26 cards?

Yes, it was the Milwaukee Brewers. 

Okay, y'all didn't come here for more ranting or numbers -- at least I don't think so -- so here's the randomized list of the commenters. I randomized it 7 times because I like 7.



JayP -- please shoot me an email with your address so I can send something your way. I know I have it around here somewhere, but help me out and make it easy.

Thank you to everyone of you who read that post and especially to those who took the time to comment. I enjoyed reading everyone's responses and thinking about the other points that you raised.

17 comments:

  1. I'm the first loser! Yes! Rank and show/prove numbers any time you want because I find it fascinating. (More the numbers than the ranks, but the rants are always good/appropriate).

    peter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll have one on Topps Now at the end of the year. I'm thinking I might go for the "Topps Ignored" set and find performances that could have/should have been highlighted instead of "David Ortiz ate four eggs for breakfast!"

      Delete
  2. I'm the 13th loser! Bad luck for me, I fear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least this time, Adam. You'll get 'em next time.

      Delete
  3. There must be a happy medium. My team has too many cards. Boo hoo, I know. But it's a pain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly my point -- at least equalize the base cards in the sets so that team collectors like me don't complain about wanting more and team collectors like you aren't buried in an avalanche of John Ryan Murphy cards just because he had 27 September plate appearances the year prior.

      Delete
  4. https://youtu.be/Wv__27TW6Lo

    I'm partial to jokes about lawyers like this.

    Or are they jokes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very funny indeed. My law school softball team was called The Hung Jury.

      Delete
  5. As a Reds fan, the late 90s were very lean years for my team. I think the small market teams go in cycles for Topps - they want the big rookies, the big stars, and the big teams...and it's (probably) even better for Topps when the big rookies play for big teams, etc. Then again, sometimes not getting a lot of cards of your team is a good thing in future years...I shudder looking back on cards of Corey Patterson as a Red or Willy Taveras.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is that point -- there are only so many cards of Chuck Carr or Ben McDonald that a Brewers fan can stand too!

      Delete
  6. I'm saying (as I'm sure you know), it's a combination of a team having enthusiastic collectors and a team winning consistently. Do both of those things and you'll get all the cards of your team you could possibly want.

    What you need (besides a return to the Brewers' Harvey's Wallbangers Days) is several more Brewers fans willing to get blocked by Sooz's husband. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally understand, N.O. I guess it's not that I actually want tons and tons of parallels and inserts, either -- it's that I want more equal representation in the main sets. Let Topps take all the money of Dodgers and Yankees and Red Sox fans through relics, autographs, and inserts -- but at least put more than 5 cards in Stadium Club of the Brewers (with 300 cards in the set, the average team should have 10, of course).

      I'm just waiting for the day when Topps itself blocks me. :-)

      Delete
  7. Just want you to know, I really enjoy your Topps Now rants. They are well warranted especially since they don't have any idea how many cards they plan to make, so with 1 card one day and 5 the next, surely they can find a happy medium among all the teams.

    I've backed off some lately, but I rant on NBC and Fox every weekend about their decision to move NASCAR races to cable from broadcast TV. NASCAR was built on Network TV and its a shame they've regulated it to second or third rate cable sports channels to show them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's the thing -- if there were a finite number per day, I could see some of their decisions making sense on Topps Now. But it's tough to justify leaving out one team's walk-off win while celebrating every other walk-off win.

      I could see NASCAR as a perfect "Instant" card sport. There are a limited number of races held (weather permitting) on Sundays every week. That said, you don't want to get me started on ESPN and their coverage of sports generally -- or even MLB Network.

      Delete
  8. JayP should get a Topps Now card for winning the contest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha! Thing is that JayP is a Diamondbacks fan, who have had FEWER Topps Now cards than the Brewers!

      Delete
  9. For years the only Pirates to chase were Kendall and Giles. At least now I'm guaranteed a Cutch, Marte and Cole just about every set.

    ReplyDelete