A Rant: Favorite Teams and Topps Cards

Harris is a well-known polling company here in the United States. They take America's pulse on a variety of subjects too -- everything from people really not trying to become more energy efficient at home to an increasing sentiment that some books should be banned completely (which is terrifying to me) to the still-strong belief  (61% of people) that the death penalty should be used in some circumstances. 

But I am not here to talk about politics. Frankly, I have strong opinions on a lot of issues, but most of those opinions relate to sports and our hobby. In particular, I have been pretty strong in my calling out Topps for its abominable distribution of cards within sets.  In particular, I have railed in the past about how Topps will jam as many Yankees as it can into a particular year's cards -- whether in inserts, parallels, or straight-up base cards -- at the cost of ignoring the "smaller" markets or teams such as the Tigers, the Twins, the Indians, and my Brewers.  Note that all of those teams are Centrally located...there's a theme there too.  

Harris, though, has been tracking America's Favorite Major League Baseball teams among all adults who follow baseball since 1999. Yes, the Yankees always do well in this poll, and the Red Sox have finished second every year since 2009. 

But here's the thing that is interesting: check out number 9 both this year and last year: the Minnesota Twins.  Who's that in 13th place in 2013 and 2014 and now in 10th? The Cleveland Indians.  Looking at 5th in 2013, 6th in 2014, and 5th again in 2015? There's the Detroit Tigers.  And, look at #8 last year and #13 this year -- the Milwaukee Brewers.  Ahead of the Mets, ahead of the Orioles, and ahead of the Nationals too.  

How did the card world look from Topps's perspective last year? According to Beckett, there were 6918 Yankees cards from Topps last year, 6546 cards of the illegally snooping St. Louis Cardinals, 4984 cards of the Mets, and 3517 cards of the Washington Nationals....and 3318 Milwaukee Brewers cards.  To be fair, that's still a lot, but when there are literally more than twice as many Yankees cards as Brewers cards -- indeed, of current teams, only the Marlins, the Twins, and the Padres had fewer (and, if you add the Florida Marlins to the Miami Marlins, then the Marlins move ahead of Milwaukee also).

This is not a one-year fluke, either. In 2013, Topps issued 6726 cards with Yankees players on them, 5282 with Cardinals, 3232 with Twins, and 2670 with Brewers.  Of active teams, only the Houston Astros had fewer cards issued in 2013, as their players appeared on 2226. 

2012 was different, as the Brewers were coming off a first place finish in the NL Central and an NLCS loss in 6 games to Satan's Messengers on Earth. That year, Milwaukee appeared on 3068 cards issued by Topps -- good enough for 12th overall and about 100 behind the 3rd-place-in-the-Central-finishing Cincinnati Reds. The Yankees stood at 6014.

But come on, Topps -- look at which teams are supported by their fans and create cards accordingly. Just because you are in the Yankees backyard shouldn't mean that you only serve the East Coast or that you should only print cards of teams you perceive to be popular.  I get that you are a business, but you are also a monopoly in terms of licensed products.  In that position, you need give up some autonomy and serve the greater good. 

And, I don't mean that you should compensate with more "wall art" money grabs. People from Milwaukee are smarter than that.  No, really -- we know grammar and everything, unlike your New York-based staff, apparently:

Seriously, though, that's a low blow. But, we are not ones to want to feel taken advantage of or, worse, being ignored.

And that's where we are, really -- Topps puts Brewers cards in packs because it is contractually obligated to do so.  But if Topps wants to grow sales, shouldn't it be tracking who the popular teams are and issue cards accordingly?

One would think that should be the case.  

Thanks for reading. After being away from the blog for a few days with sorting and organizing and, then, networking, for some reason I felt it was time for my yearly bitching about Topps post.

Fun stuff will return tomorrow (or over the weekend)!

Everyone Else is Doing It, so Why Not Me?

I'm not entirely sure what it is about the 2014 Topps Archives set that makes me think of an Irish alternative band from 1993.  But, here I am with a post title that references The Cranberries debut album name (Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?) and their second biggest hit, "Linger."

Let me think about this for a second and look to the lyrics from Linger....hmmm...the lyrics to Linger were written by Dolores O'Riordan as part of her audition to join the band.  The song, according to her, was about her "first serious kiss."  Or, if you look at the lyrics, it sure sounds like a person who feels trapped in a relationship but who cannot seem to break free from the relationship.

It might be a bit of a stretch, but I sort of feel that way about the Archives sets.

I loved the 2012 Archives when I got a couple of them off Amazon using some store credit I had there. Then, I admitted my inability to keep myself from buying two hobby boxes of the 2013 Archives when I went to my local card store in March.  So, I knew that I would want the 2014 version.

But, as I heard more and found out more about the set, it started turning me off.  The first problem: no Ryan Braun.  I guess Topps is okay about bringing back steroid abusers from the past, but anyone who has been suspended but is still a current player is persona non grata.  That's fine.  I don't have that big of a problem with that. I can work through that issue.

Problem Number 2: increasing the number of short-printed cards to fifty.  Each year, this number has creeped northward--from 41 thanks to the ridiculous shoehorning of another Bryce Harper card into the 2012 set to 45 last year.  Even this didn't make me wonder whether it was just a game to Topps.

Problem Number 3: using the same designs for the short prints as for the regular set.  Ugh.  One of my least favorite activities is continually flipping cards from front to back as I open the pack to see if the card is in the "high number" series.  In the past, at least, the distinctive designs helped identify the short prints.  Not this year:

While the 1989 Topps Design (another issue I have which I'll get to in a minute) provides the base set design for cards 151 through 200, this card of twice-convicted steroid user Manny Ramirez is card 204.

EDIT:  Oops, forgot to address the 1989 design thing.  Yeah, I get it that we're 25 years after 1989 and all. Not all anniversaries should be celebrated. I guess Topps is celebrating those years when it pulled the wool over everyone's eyes successfully and printed enough cards for every man, woman, and child to have put together three complete sets for themselves and one more to ship to Africa for those less fortunate.  Please let this design die, Topps.  Please.

Problem Number 4: Only 5 Brewers in the base set.  On the bright side, there are no Brewers in the short-printed high numbers.  I even picked up my Robin Yount card:

On the other hand, this is 5 Brewers as compared to:

• Eighteen St. Louis Cardinals, all in the 1-200 base set
• Eleven Boston Red Sox, including 4 short prints
• Nine New York Mets, including 3 short prints, and 
• TWENTY-TWO New York Yankees, including 7 short prints and this guy:

Nothing against Murphy, who is hitting well as Brian McCann's backup currently, but why do the Yankees get their freaking backup catcher in the set and the Brewers All-Star shortstop from last year, Jean Segura, doesn't get into the set?

Problem Number 5:  The elimination of the Fan Favorites being the high-numbered cards in favor of more cards of Babe Ruth, Reggie Jackson, Sandy Koufax, Nolan Ryan, and Justin Verlander.  One of my favorite parts of the 2013 Archives set was having cards of guys like Lee May, Charlie Hough, and Kent Hrbek included.  Yeah, there weren't any Brewers in those short prints last year, but the guys I mentioned were minor stars who were beloved in the cities in which they played.  This year, there are a few of those "fan favorite" types -- Darren Daulton is probably the best example -- but even here it just appeared to be an excuse to put in more New York and Los Angeles players into the set...Dusty Baker, Mookie Wilson, John Olerud (as a Met), and Graig Nettles (as a Yankee) are not the same.  

So I guess Problems 4 and 5 really are the problem of being a smaller market.  Bud Selig was right.

Other than those major complaints, 2014 Archives isn't a bad set.  Seriously.  I don't mind the 1987 "Future Stars" inserts that much, such as this one that I pulled:

I don't mind the All-Star rack-pack-insert-style cards either (I got a Gary Carter here, so it's been put away in its binder already).

I'm not even viscerally opposed to the Parallels.  I have a Felix Hernandez gold that I'd love to trade for something I actually collect:

I guess I just feel used.  I'm such a fool for these cards.  And seeing everyone posting on their blogs about them is making evident this set's ability to wrap me around its proverbial finger linger. And linger.  And that's my tortured way to understand thinking about The Cranberries.

But I'm done being a fool for Archives.  I'm not going to try to collect the full set this year.  I'll take the Brewers, but that's all for me, thanks.