Lee Walls: a glove story

I received this card from steelehere of 1207 Consecutive Games prior to Christmas. It's an unfortunate photo of Lee Walls, who had a couple of respectable years in the '50s, but mostly played a utility role during his career. He wrapped things up with the Dodgers in the early 1960s, and played in Japan for a year.

Walls seems like a pleasant enough fellow, but if it wasn't for the baseball uniform he is wearing, you would never know he was a ballplayer. Something to do with the glasses, the receding hairline, the serene look.

I know players look different these days. They don't wear glasses. They have contacts or get Lasik surgery. If they're going bald, they shave off the rest of their hair and grow a goatee. And players are in such good shape now that even if they are smiling in their card photo, they don't exactly look nonthreatening.

But even though players looked a bit different back then, I think there were even a few people in 1962 who didn't believe that Walls was a ballplayer after seeing this '62 Topps card.

That's because the following year, Topps put out this card of Walls:

This is what is known as "learning by repetition." By issuing a card with the exact same photo, Topps seemed to be saying, "See? He really IS a ballplayer." Plus Topps threw in that little inset photo where Walls actually has a bat in his hand. You know, just in case collectors still thought that their milkman had ended up in the card set by mistake.

But I'm thinking Walls was not very happy with the way he was presented before the world those two years. He probably called up Topps and gave them a piece of his mind. Then he went out and did something about it.

The next year, Walls was pictured as A Legitimate Ballplayer. He's finally wearing a Dodger uniform, he has a bat, but most importantly (*gasp*) HE HAS A BATTING GLOVE.

I remember there being a discussion on one of the blogs on when the batting glove first made an appearance on a baseball card. I don't think anyone had an answer, but the thought was the batting glove started popping up on cards in the late '60s, and by the early 1970s the glove was almost as plentiful as the crew cut.

But I don't think I've ever seen the batting glove appear in a photo taken as early as 1963. Ken Harrelson supposedly is the first player to wear a batting glove in a game, during the mid-1960s.

Now, granted, my knowledge and collection of early '60s cards is very small, and I'd appreciate it if people can find earlier examples of a player wearing a batting glove on a card.

But for now, I'm saying the first guy was Walls. Credit Topps' 1962/1963 cards, credit Walls moving to the movie capital of the world, credit Walls finally getting out of a Cubs uniform. Whatever it was, it led to this:

Lee Walls: fashion icon.

The greatest glove moment since Michael Jackson first donned a single glove during the 25th anniversary Motown special in 1983.

Lee Walls and Michael Jackson. Who knew?

A writer going off

I was going to do another trade post tonight. But then I started trying to catch up on all the blog posts I missed tonight while occupied by work. I came across a few Hall of Fame posts, since in a few short hours the 2010 selections -- if any -- will be announced.

I started to comment on one of the posts and then I realized I was babbling for far too long and that it needed to be a post of my own.

So, here it is. Take it for what it's worth.

As a writer for over 20 years, I take offense when people lump all writers together under some sort of derogatory heading that often goes like this: "Writers don't know shit."

OK. Let's dissect that a little. That's what's known as a generalization. Here is something that's a little more accurate:

"SOME writers don't know shit."

And here's the other part of that more accurate statement:

"Some writers know more than you or I will ever know."

When the Hall of Fame selections come out, certain players will be left outside the Hall door. Happens every year. And people will fume and vent and call people names. That happens every year, too. It is the bitching season, after all.

I happen to think that some of the writers who have Hall of Fame ballots are morons. They have proven it. But I also think that other writers who have ballots are brilliant. They have fantastic minds. So you have some people voting for Hall of Famers who don't know what they're doing and some voting who absolutely do.

And that brings up the question: does that mean the voting system is broken?

I don't know. Probably. I think the Veterans Committee might have a few more problems.

But I get irked when people say "throw out the writers, those incompetent ninnies."

OK, throw them out. Who are you going to get to replace them? I hear precious little about a solution to the problem. Tell me: Who is going to vote if the writers can't?

I do know one thing: unless someone comes up with a strict series of voting rules or develops some sort of numerical formula to determine who gets in PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHO IS VOTING. ALWAYS.

And that is because this scenario happens whenever you get a collection of people together to decide something important. The people on the outside -- the excluded -- are going to bitch about the decision.

So, go ahead, dump all the writers. But if you get a bunch of scientists to vote in the Hall of Famers, I guarantee you're eventually going to have a problem with the scientists. If you get a group of politicians to do it, you're going to eventually have a problem with the politicians. Statisticians? You'll grow dissatisfied eventually. Historians? You'll be bitching about some historians' rational for not voting so-and-so in. You could have 20 of your best buddies from the bar voting for the next Hall of Famer and eventually you're going to get pissed off at half of them and want to fight the other half.

That's life my friends. It's the human condition. It's played out on American Idol on a weekly basis from February to May. And every fourth November people rip their idiot neighbor because he voted for the wrong guy to live in a giant white house in Washington.

I do agree that there are players that should be in the Hall by now. Andre Dawson really should be in the Hall. Bert Blyleven probably should be in the Hall. Hell, I think Gil Hodges should have been the Hall long ago.

I think if I was voting today, I probably would pick Dawson and Roberto Alomar.

And you know what? At least a few of you has a problem with who I just picked. Maybe one of you called me an idiot. But do you think I should have my blog taken away from me because of that?

Bitching can be fun. It makes for some great arguments.

But between the endless bitching, I'd like to see a suggestion on how things could be better. And maybe, just every once in awhile, I'd like to see some recognition for the writers who got it right.

I'm waiting.

(P.S.: I'd be stunned if Dawson didn't get in this year).

Cardboard appreciation: the championship

We have reached the end. The pairing is set for the Cardboard Appreciation Vote-Off Finale.

You can feel the excitement in the air. The tension. The anticipation. The heart palpitations. The numbness down the left side of your body. The crushing feeling in your ... Oh, wait, that's a heart attack. Wrong kind of excitement.

In a rousing all-1975 semifinal, Oscar Gamble held off Herb Washington and Boog Powell to claim the spot in the finals. It was interesting to see the voting. Powell jumped out to an early lead, then faded. Washington was steady throughout, made a brief run, but just couldn't catch Gamble, who led the whole way after eclipsing Powell.

Here is the vote tally:

1. Oscar Gamble, 1975 Topps: 21 votes
2. Herb Washington, 1975 Topps: 15 votes
3. Boog Powell, 1975 Topps: 11 votes

That was a close one.

Will the final be as close as the last semifinal? I'm not sure. As you may recall, this is the other finalist:

I'm not betting against the 1991 Carlton Fisk card.

Just to give you a little more to look at before you make your all-important vote, here are the pros and cons of each card:

1975 Topps Oscar Gamble

Pros:

1. It's from the 1975 set, the best set of all-time
2. The glorious Afro doubling as a set of Mickey Mouse ears
3. The old-style Cleveland "C" on his cap
4. The fact that his mustache is so awesome, but you barely notice it because of the hair.
5. His name. How can I forget his name? Oscar. Gamble. That's a great one.

Cons:

1. There might be a better Oscar Gamble card, which is also a potential future Cardboard Appreciation subject
2. Some people think the '75 set is too loud. I don't associate with such people, but they're out there.
3. The card might be a bit, shall-we-say, dated for some younger collectors. To some, 1997 is old-school. So it may be tough to relate to this card.
4. Gamble played for the Yankees. You can't underestimate this reason. You know what I say: If you see an opportunity to vote against the Yankees, take it.
5. Gamble willingly wore that mid-1970s White Sox uniform. Fortunately, he arrived in Chicago a year after the team scrapped those horrible shorts.

1991 Topps Carlton Fisk

Pros:

1. Action! In one of the most actioniest action sets that Topps ever produced, this card could be the most actioniest of all.
2. Big Daddy's large behind. Could this be the real source of all of Prince's rage against his father? This card brings up an important psychological point.
3. The yellow police-tape railings of old Comiskey Park. Those, and the Tiger flagging down Fielder make the whole card for me.
4. It's a horizontal card. Have I mentioned that I want to see an entire set of horizontal cards sometime soon? I have? Have I mentioned it this week?
5. Carlton Fisk once slugged Lou Piniella.

Cons:

1. The design of the '91 cards is fairly dull. I know that was my reaction to it when the '91 cards first came out. It certainly can't compare to the '75 set.
2. Fisk is almost a secondary player in the photo. I don't like it when it's difficult to figure out who the main guy is.
3. Big Daddy's large behind. Yes, it is a pro and a con. Different strokes for different folks.
4. It's not vintage enough: 1991 was not even 20 years ago. "Old" is impressive in the card world. 1991 t'aint old.
5. Fisk leaving Boston was a sad moment for me. In a way, I'm still not over it.

Perhaps that made your decision even more difficult. Sorry. That wasn't the intent.

The poll has made its way to the sidebar. Amble on over there and cast a ballot. Around this time next week, we will have a Cardboard Appreciation Champeen. As for that other championship going on this week: Give me a couple days and I will have forgotten who college football's national champion is.

No day at the beach

It's January. And that means one thing: I will regain feeling in my fingers in three months.

It's a lovely 10 degrees outside now and it is gently snowing. It's been gently snowing for about four days, which adds up to a not-so-gentle pile of cold on the ground. But that's preferable to the wind-whipped frozen grenades that hit our area a week or so ago.

Still, all of it contributes to a general frozen feeling no matter how many layers of clothing I wear.

I feel like the late, great Darryl Kile, who in a bit of unfortunate typecasting is pictured as half frozen while snow falls around him on a barren planet.

It all makes me long for those summer days of green grass, lemonade, and major leaguers playing beach baseball.

What's that? You've never heard of major league beach baseball?

How about now?

No?

Did it at least make you feel a little bit warmer?

Yeah, me neither.

It's too f---ing cold for that nonsense.

I'm going to bed.

Brush with greatness: John Mabry

I'm starting to get down to the end of my list of Brush With Greatness subjects. I think I have only 5 or 6 left.

As I've said before, my on-the-job writing/reporting has trickled down to next to nothing as my editing responsibilities have increased. On Sunday, for just the fourth time in the last year, a story with my byline appeared in my newspaper. And as always, I barely had time to write it.

Still, if the chance to talk to a big league ballplayer for a story arose, I'd take it. Because those opportunities are slim around these parts.

My opportunity to talk to former major league John Mabry came when I was doing the story on George Kissell, the late legendary coach of the Cardinals. The conversation I had with him wasn't terribly interesting, but it highlighted something that has always been on my mind.

When you read an article in a newspaper or in a magazine or wherever, and you read the quotes, how do they sound to you? What I mean is, when you read the quote, does it have the same "voice" as any other quote you read? It does for me. The quotes I read sound the same in my head. The person speaking has the same voice as any other person speaking in any other article I've read. The inflection is the same, the volume is the same. It doesn't matter whether the person spoke softly or loudly or grumpily or with a massive Spanish accent. The quotes all sound the same to me in my head.

I suppose the exception is for people I've heard speak on television dozens of times -- the president, A-Rod, people like that. But everyone else gets lumped under the same generic voice category.

The reason I mention that is the quotes don't tell you what the writer went through to get them. They don't reveal anything about the nature of the conversation. It's the old line about sausage. You don't know how it's made (and you don't want to). You just know the final product.

Here are the quotes from Mabry that were published in the article I wrote. He's talking about George Kissell:

"He's like a grandfather. He takes care of you just like a grandfather would. He doesn't hurt your feelings, but he teaches you while he's giving you lessons."

and ...

"He wore us out. He was throwing two buckets of batting practice to us and hitting us five buckets of ground balls. He's got a lot of energy and after having heart surgery, he's still going pretty strong."

Fairly good quotes. I was happy with those. But coming away from the interview, I didn't think I had anything like that, just because of the vibe I got from Mabry.

He wasn't hostile or anything. I just got the impression he wanted me to go away. Either that or he just didn't like talking in general.

I was told he'd be a good person to talk to about Kissell, being an infielder and his previous contact with the coach. But I couldn't find Mabry in the locker room. I eventually found him in the dugout, sitting by himself with a bat in his hand. I think he might have been waiting to get in the cage for batting practice. I can't remember.

I don't know if I got him at a bad time or interrupted his routine or what. Maybe my perception was off and he was just a quiet guy. Being a quiet guy myself, I'm aware that people can mistake quietness for standoffishness. At any rate, he seemed reluctant.

But when you read the quotes, you don't sense reluctance, do you? He seems forthcoming and very pleasant, doesn't he? That's the magic of story-writing, my friends.

Mabry did his job, as far as I am concerned. He gave me some good stuff. Also, I didn't know about Kissell's heart surgery before I talked to Mabry. So that was a good tip. And I looked into it.

Not every interview has to be a touchy-feely moment, or a back-slapping pal-around session. What counts are the words they speak. I know that now. But it took me awhile.

Somehow we got by

I received a cell phone for Christmas. At least I think that's what they still call them. These things are barely phones anymore. In fact I'm sure my phone scoffs at the thought of actually making a call. It's just begging me to ask it to sit, lie down, roll over and fetch.

I have news for it. It's going to be waiting a long time.

You'll note that when I said I received a cell phone that I didn't say I received a "new" cell phone. That's because I didn't have one prior to Dec. 25th. That doesn't mean I've never had one. I'm not that backward.

My first cell phone looked much like the one the girl is holding in the photo. I had one in the early 1990s. They were called "car phones" back then. Do you remember that? Their purpose was to be used in the event you were on the road and needed to make a call. Perfectly logical.

Through the years I updated my phones and became more and more annoyed with them by the year. I didn't like the constant upgrading, it required too much of my attention. And, most of all, I'm the type of person that likes the idea of being unreachable. I NEED to be unreachable. And you can't do that with a cell phone. Even when you turn it off, so you can't be contacted, someone gets pissed off because they tried to reach you and the phone was off.

If you don't have a phone, then people just shrug and say, "He doesn't have a phone. Can't call him."

I like that.

So for years, while even the most backward of people, those who were the most resistant to change --AMISH people for crying out loud -- acquired a cell phone or an iphone or a blackberry or whatever, I didn't have one piece of electronic equipment on my person. Until now.

Because of financial reasons and certain family members who insist that I be reachable (I have officially run out of arguments), I have a tiny phone. Access to my phone number is restricted to a small selection of people. If it ends up in the hands of people who are not in the select circle, the penalty is death, or at least eternal banishment.

I don't expect this to change my life. After all, this is a guy who simply scrapped his phone five years ago because he never used it. So, right now this is just a piece of equipment, not an extension of myself.

And if you ever catch me saying the non-word "app," you have permission to slap me.

OK, that's a lot of writing about a damn phone. Why did I bring that up? It's because I know there is a whole generation of people who wonder how people functioned before cell phones came to be.

And my response to anyone who says that is the same as any old fart: "somehow we got by."

It's like baseball cards. Yes, we really did collect cards when there was only one manufacturer. And, yes, we really did enjoy it. We collected like maniacs -- minus the gold foil, refractors or jersey bits. And we were really, really, REALLY happy.

We also didn't protect our cards with anything because there wasn't anything available. A box that once housed shoes was perfectly adequate.

I recently received Dodgers from the era of "Somehow We Got By." Reader Ed said he had some old Dodger cards for me and sent them along in a plain white envelope.

Let's have a look at how we treated cards back then, shall we?

Here is the 1961 team checklist. It's actually in fairly good shape, although there's a crease in the upper right corner. Also in that corner is some dude with crazy shades who looks like he should be in Devo. It makes the whole card for me.

Walt Alston looks a bit worse for wear on this 1960 Topps card, but he's smiling about it. He's been in a shoe box in the back of a closet for too long. He says it's good to breathe again.

Here is the back, which we know well, thanks to 2009 Heritage. The 1960 Topps manager card backs are the best ever.

Doug Camili is majorly miscut and yellowing badly in the upper right corner. But his expression remains hopeful. It's 1963 after all, and the Dodgers are going to sweep the Yankees in the World Series. Yup, Doug knew it all the time.

This 1964 Topps card of Ron Perranoski looks pretty darn good. But it has a dark secret. On the back are four spots where this card was taped/glued somewhere. How it was removed and remained in such pristine shape is a testament to Ed, I guess.

You may note the L.A. Coliseum in the background. That probably means that this photo dates to Perranoski's rookie season in 1961, which was the last year that the Dodgers played in that stadium.

Very nice. A Ron Cey oddball I didn't have. Kids had such a difficult time cutting out those Hostess cards. I know from experience. That blue spot on Cey's uniform is just a shadow. I'm sorry to disappoint those of you who hoped it was a stain. But there IS a stain on the back of the card!

Last card. It's a 1966 well-rounded gem of Nick Willhite. Look at the expression on Willhite's face. He really looks like he's straining there.

Now, does that look like a guy who had a cell phone? And somehow he made the major leagues.

Define the design (76T, 70T, 89F & 00T)

It's "Define the Design" time! Yes, time to slap labels on baseball card sets just because I need to have a name for everything.

When my daughter was little and she received a new stuffed animal, I'd ask her what the animal's name was. Half the time, she'd say "I don't know" or "it doesn't have a name." And I'd sit there stunned. It HAS to have a name, I thought. What is wrong with my daughter? Is she OK? Is she maturing properly? Are we feeding her well? Did we get rid of the lead-based toys?

I was a new parent.

After I calmed down, I realized I didn't have much power over getting my daughter to give names to inanimate objects. So, I decided to name my own inanimate objects, namely pieces of cardboard!

OK, let's get to it before the men with white coats arrive and haul me away.

When we last we left off, everyone was struggling over a name for 1976 Topps. I finally decided I liked one of the ideas. The person -- I forget who -- called it "the test pattern" set, after the TV test patterns. The bars on the bottom of the card do look test-patternish. However, test patterns are vertical. So, we'll call it "the horizontal test pattern" set.

Maybe not the greatest, but it works for me.

After that bit of difficulty, I thought I'd select names for three easy sets. They all have something in common, at least according to me.

The first is the 1970 Topps set. It is now the "gray border set." Very straightforward. But in 1970 it was quite a drastic change over the series of white borders in the 1960s (1962 excluded).

The next one is the 1989 Fleer set. Note the common color. This is known as the "pinstripe set" to many collectors. But I'm going into a bit more detail, thanks to Steve of White Sox Cards. He nailed it when he called it "the pinstripe gangster suit look." So that is what it will be -- "the pinstriped gangster suit set."

Finally, here is the 2000 Topps set. To me, this set looks just like the 1970 set except for the gold foil. This was during Topps' metal era when everything was either silver or gold. I know if you asked a Topps representative back in 2000 what color this set was they'd say something lame like "metallic chrome."

To me it looks "gray," just like the 1970 set. But I'll humor them and call it "the silver border set."

Bone thrown.

If anyone has names for these sets that they want to suggest, feel free. Maybe I'll change the name I have for them if I like it enough.

Bats in my belfry

I received this fine card from Bud of First Day Issue. He is always thinking of me, and you can't do a better job of finding something I like than tracking down something with Ron Cey on it.

The addition of Bill Russell is a bonus, as is bad-ass club member George Foster, even if the pairing of 1970s Dodgers and Reds is odd, since they were sworn enemies. After all, it was the Reds, Yankees and Linda Blair who taught me what true evil was.

As for the top right corner of the card, I'll ignore my least favorite announcer (when Chris Berman is in the studio anyway). I'll put my thumb over Morgan's face when I'm showing off the card.

But that's not the thing that is distressing me. The nagging question I have is this: how do I know that these bat scraps are from four different bats used individually by Cey, Russell, Foster and Morgan?

I find a single swatch or a single bat sliver on a card believable. But four different bat slivers? Four different bat slivers from the bats of four different players? Four different bat slivers from the bats of four different players whose careers were at their prime 30 years ago?

I'm not willing to suspend disbelief in this case. Did Upper Deck really go through the trouble of finding those four bats and making sure a sliver of each was available for this card, and then applied each sliver to the proper spot and didn't mix them up?

The back says:

"You have received a Game-Used Bats trading card from The Upper Deck Company, LLC. On the front of this card are authentic pieces of bats used by George Foster, Joe Morgan, Ron Cey and Bill Russell in official Major League Baseball games."

I need more than that Upper Deck. For a four-bat card I need names, dates, locations and license plate numbers. How do I know you didn't just cut up a shelf in one of your offices and afix the remnants to this card? I mean you half-ass whole CARD SETS. One card is nothing for you.

I will not rest until I get the facts. I will work day and night. I will go through your garbage. I'll find the master key and sneak into your headquarters. I'll call in tree experts and ...

What?

Shut up, Night Owl and enjoy the card?

But how will I ever find out ...

(*sigh*)

Oh, all right.

(Thanks, Bud!)

Awesome night card, pt. 66

Perhaps you've heard that this is the blog of the year. One of those award shows said so.

I'm not sure how that happened. I didn't win "most creative blog," or "best designed blog" or "blog trader of the year," or "box breaker of the year," but I ended up with "blog of the year." My blog is like one of those players who doesn't lead in any significant statistical category but ends up with the MVP award.

Oh, no! I'm the Jimmy Rollins of card blogs!

Anyway, receiving recognition makes me uncomfortable. I've won writing awards before. Once I even had to go to a state-wide banquet to pick up the award. Thank goodness I didn't have to give a speech, or you never would have gotten me within 100 miles of the place. It was bad enough walking up to the front to accept the certificate.

Personally, my vote goes to this blog or this blog. And I certainly don't expect to win it next year, not with this blog back. But I am glad that what I write interests people. I never expected that.

That's it for the speech. I'll just thank the academy, express my appreciation for their hard work, and move forward with more inane posts.

Happy two thousand ten. Er, twenty ten. What are we calling this year now?

Looking backward and forward. But mostly backward

The last time I featured Ryne Sandberg in a tux, I listed the 100 things that I had learned about card-collecting in 2008.

I was just four months into blogging then. By some people's standards I am a grizzled blogging veteran now -- I have the bronzed trophy of a dude in his underwear sitting at his computer to prove it -- but I still have a lot to learn.

Although it's obvious I enjoy a good list, I'm not going to do that this year. I'm just going to look back at my favorite posts from '09 here at Night Owl Cards -- you know, just in case I have to pad the resume. I do still write for a living, so you never know when I'll have to dash off a copy of that ode to 1984 Donruss to a prospective employer.

So these are the posts that I liked. These are the posts that didn't make me go, "god, what a load of crap THAT was."

First are the posts that showed how great this blogging community is.

Feb. 6: Thanks to Brian at 30-Year-Old Cardboard, I made my first successful TTM try in 2009. Cey is really the only autographed card I've ever wanted. But that didn't make the successes this year with Duke Snider, Fernando Valenzuela, Jerry Reuss and Carl Erskine any less enjoyable.

June 19: Zach from Autographed Cards provided the most mind-blowing moment for me in 2009, sending along this glossy photo that Orel Hershiser signed to "Night Owl." I am still amazed.

Second among my favorite posts are the ones about the goings-on in the hobby that struck a chord with readers. I'm not someone who is on the cutting edge of card collecting. I don't expect to be getting free boxes of product to bust here. But I do pay attention and sometimes I have an opinion.

Aug. 6: News of Upper Deck losing its MLB license prompted me to remember my all-time favorite Upper Deck set. That set was so good that it made this Topps devotee completely shun Topps for all of 1993.

June 3: I received this card in a trade, and it wasn't long before I noticed that there was an extra foot growing out of Manny Ramirez's leg. A steroid side-effect? No, not unless use of certain female fertility drugs causes you to sprout a size 13 shoe. It was just Topps/Bowman erasing the umpire but forgetting to erase his foot!

June 7 and June 8: I write this blog under the impression that only a few devoted card collectors are going to read it. But I should know that anyone can stumble across it. When MLB scout Larry Pardo did, he wasn't thrilled with my diatribe against Bowman's scout autograph cards. I don't have a problem with scouts. Not even Larry. But I do dislike scout autographs. And so do people who voted in the worst card of '09 poll.

Aug. 7: I also hate it when people call card collectors "nerds," or card collecting "nerdy." I almost hate it even more when card collectors say, "Yeah, you're right, we're nerds." Speak for yourself. I collect cards, but I am not nerdy. I have a home, a family, a decent job, friends, and write my blog in a well-lit dining room. Oh, and memo to Kornheiser and Wilbon: card collecting will be around when your show is not.

Next are the quirky posts. I'm actually more comfortable when I'm not speaking for a community but doing my own little off-the-wall thing. If others like it, that's all the better.

May 4: As a child, my brother and I came up with a name for the player that makes the last out in a game. With a little reminiscing and research, a post was born. I'm happy others got a kick out of it. Kids have the best ideas.

Sept. 6: Alyssa Milano's news that she was married was crushing, and it wasn't because she is an attractive TV/movie actress who is also a Dodger fan. It's because she went over to the dark side for a husband. It was like one of those bad Charmed episodes. Wait a minute, they were all bad. Nice outfits. But bad.

March 1: I never expected my obsessive ranking of my personal preference in baseball teams to be of interest to anyone. Little did I know that lots of other people do this. And I'll be updating the list in 2010.

But my favorite posts are the ones that tell a personal story. Yeah, maybe it's narcissistic, but I'm writing with the hope of connecting with others who think like me or have encountered the same situation. I'm sick of getting blank looks in real life. These are posts that made a connection.

April 22: I have something called synesthesia. It causes me to associate words or letters with colors. After I wrote the post, I came across others who either had this condition or knew people who did. It was cool to hear their stories.

March 24: One of my favorite memories as a kid was when my dad placed a large grocery bag full of 195os baseball cards on the dining room table. I love having a community of card collectors who can appreciate stories like this. And I like to read their stories, too. Why else would I spend hours each day in front of the computer?

July 31: Unlike some bloggers, I don't get to go to a lot of ball games. But the game I went to this year will stay in my mind forever. It's the day my daughter admitted she enjoyed baseball. She hasn't repeated that sentiment since. But I just have to get her out to another game.

Sept. 24: One of my favorite things about reading other blogs is how much reverence they have for the past players of the game. That inspired me to tell a story about my acquaintance with a pitcher from the 1950s. I really enjoyed writing the post and the comments made afterward.

OK, that's enough regurgitation. I'll move onto the Worst Card of 2009.

After 83 votes in the poll, the winner of the Worst Card, in fairly easy fashion is:

The "I Love You" Virus card from the despised Upper Deck 20th Anniversary Retrospective set.

It was pretty obvious that this card was going to win. Nobody liked getting these cards in their packs. And when the restrospective card was not sports-related, that was even worse.

I'm guessing some folks didn't vote for that card because it wasn't connected to baseball. So here is the baseball card that received the most votes as the worst card:

Congrats to Michael Young. Michael --- wake up! You've won. Michael! Michael!

Ah, never mind. Here is the final "Worst Card" tally:

1. I Love You Virus, UD 20th Anniversary Retrospective, 28 votes
2. Michael Young, O-Pee-Chee Moments insert, 19 votes
3. Larry Pardo, Bowman scout autograph card, 13 votes
4. Dave Concepcion, Goudey, 10 votes
5. Ryan Braun, Topps, 4 votes
6. Dave Winfield, UD 20th Anniversary Retrospective, 3 votes
7. Tony Gwynn, UD 20th Anniversary Retrospective, 2 votes
7. Cito Gaston, Topps, 2 votes
9. Humberto Quintero, Topps, 2 votes

Thanks for the votes.

By now you're saying, "that's an awful lot of looking backward, Night Owl. Where's the looking forward?"

Well, I don't have a lot to say about what's ahead, mostly because I can't predict the future. So what I'd say would mostly involve wishes and speculation. Wishes are great but you don't need another blog to yammer about on-card autographs and more/fewer products. There are enough of those folks elsewhere. They do it better.

And as far as speculation? Hate it.

So, the following is about all I'll write about looking forward: I opened a hobby box of Topps Chrome yesterday. It wasn't kind to me.

There were two guaranteed autographs:

The first one is Sergio Escalona, a young pitcher for the Phillies. This card is spoken for already. I just swung a deal for it.

This is the other one. Young Michael Bowden of the Red Sox. I pulled another Red Sox auto a couple of weeks ago. Well, an ex-Red Sox auto. Justin Masterson, out of a box of Goodwin.

Both are up for trade. I'm looking for Dodger autos. The more current the better.

So there you go. There's the "looking forward" part. I have a trade in my future!

Happy New Year! May 2010 be the best blogging year ever.

The best cards of 2009

Today, Russell Martin is handing over the crown. He has reigned for a full year as "The Best Card of 2008." But now it's time for a new card to take on all the responsibilities that are necessary with such a lofty title.

Like I promised before, I am going to count down the best cards of 2009. At one point I had thought of posting a poll so folks could vote on their favorites. But I do enough damn polls. I'm sick of them. So, I'm going communist on this blog. You're going to accept whatever card I determine as the best and you'll LIKE IT. The ruler has spoken.

This list is restricted to cards that I pulled during the past year. And I'm not including "hit" cards -- relics or autos. They're too unique -- well, relatively speaking. It's hard to compare them to regular cards.

The list didn't change a lot from the first one I did back in August. That's because I did the bulk of my 2009 card shopping in the first eight months. And what came out in the final four months didn't impress me much. There's no Goodwin on this list. No T206. Only one Updates & Highlights card.

And, like before, there is no base Upper Deck. If you want to know why, ask yourself, "do you know anyone trying to complete the 2009 UD base set?" Neither do I.

The countdown begins with four cards that aren't special in their own way. Instead, they represent a certain '09 innovation that I appreciated, so I'm honoring them in the countdown.

OK, on with the little dog-and-pony countdown show:

20. Allen & Ginter Negro League stars cards: This was a nice aspect of this year's A&G set. I enjoyed learning about these players, few of whom I had known before this year. Very well-done, but not overdone.

19. Topps Updates & Highlights propaganda cards: I hate to keep showing the Ramirez card, but it's the only one I've got. And really, the only one that matters to me. To me, the propaganda cards were the perfect execution of displaying non-photographic art on a card.

18. Allen & Ginter Creatures of Legend, Myth & Terror: Not all of A&G's insert sets interest me, but I thought this was a cool idea. I traded away the Nessie card, but I wouldn't mind having it back.

17. Topps Wal-Mart black cards: Topps butchered the entire idea of this in Series 2. I don't know if I'll ever get any of the Series 2 black Dodger cards. But the actual look of the card won me over and looked great (although they smelled a bit weird). It's an entire set of night cards!

16. Cat Osterman, Allen & Ginter: OK, now we're onto the actual individual card. This card is great for one reason: it's a card of an attractive, successful female athlete. Female card collectors enjoy a perk in this hobby that male collectors don't: the eye-candy aspect. This card reverses things a little. Maybe Topps is on to something here. I mean look at how popular this card was.

15. Rich Harden, Topps base: There's a blog that doesn't like this card. I don't get it. This is one of the most photographically artistic cards I've seen in a long time. But art is subjective.

14. Albert Pujols, Allen & Ginter sketch card insert: Speaking of which, I am one of the few who doesn't care about the sketch cards that have popped up in sets the last couple of years. There are so many of them that do not look good. However, this is not one. A very sweet card.

13. Brandon Jones, Topps Heritage: Jones is back again and he still looks pissed. I wish there was an actual background and then this really would look like a 1960s throw-back card. Because Jones has that intense stare that I see on a lot of '60s cards down cold.

12. David DeJesus, Topps base: I don't know how I left this card off the first list. That is a great shot. There are so many award-winning worthy photos in the '09 base set.

11. Jon Lester, Topps base: It's difficult to put a new spin on a photo of a pitcher throwing the ball to home plate. This isn't necessarily new, but it has all the ingredients. And you see the focus on Lester's face.

10. Reed Johnson, Topps base: Lots of people like this card. You could make an argument for it being the best card of the year. I'll go with you on that.

9. Chone Figgins, O-Pee-Chee: There are a number of panoramic-type shots in the OPC set. It almost makes up for the bazillion studio shots. This is my favorite one.

8. Paul Konerko, Topps base: Out of all the different photos to pop up in the '09 base set, this is the "most different."

7. Nelson Cruz, Topps base: Best tightest action shot of the year? Yup.

6. Andy LaRoche, Topps Heritage: To me, success in the Heritage set is when you look at the card and everything about it seems like it is "of the era" that is being portrayed with the design. This card does the best job of that.

5. Roy Halladay, O-Pee-Chee black: A new entry on the countdown! What a killer card. I stopped what I was doing when I pulled this card because it looked so good when I saw it. The black border really makes the card.

4. Reggie Abercrombie, Topps base: I'm guessing Abercrombie is out on this play. But he remains a success because his card was the first sign that the 2009 set would not be like that lousy '08 Topps offering.

3. Jim Thome, Topps base: This was No. 1 on the first countdown. I bumped Thome down a bit because I've realized the other two cards are better. But I still think it's a great shot. Classic old-timey shot of a classic, old-timey player.

2. Clayton Kershaw, Allen & Ginter: I really, really wanted to put this card at No. 1 and have Dodgers winning the best card of the year honors two years running. But someone might smell something fishy and close this place down. Still, you can't dispute that it's beyond awesome.

1. David Murphy, Topps base: The champion of 2009! This is the feel-good, baseball-in-July, everything-is-right-with-the-world card of all cards. And that's why it's the best card of 2009.

There you have it. A pretty fine year for some sets. A lousy one for others. Here's to some more great stuff in 2010! Upper Deck! Show us what you've got next year! Do you have anything?

Post-Christmas blowout

I spent my Christmas money today. Most of it anyway. Oh, what a lovely day that is. It's the only day of the year that I enjoy shopping. It's like I suddenly become a male version of Rebecca Bloomwood. It's alarming.

Baseball cards will bring that out in a guy. Thank goodness this day comes around only once a year. Otherwise I couldn't stand myself.

The first think I bought were some binders and some pages. As dull as those things are, I am very happy to have them. I can really do some damage on the stacks of cards I have piling up. But then I'm going to have to figure out where to put the binders. I might have to pull a Wrigley Wax and build some shelves in the basement. That will definitely get the shopping willies out of my system.

After that, I went to the hobby shop, and I swear that will be the last time. First, the place was awash in football and basketball. Even the boxes with loose packs. Yawn. Secondly, I was dying to buy a box of something. But everything was crazy overpriced.

I settled on a box of Topps Chrome because I think I'm going to try to kill off the set. Hopefully, this will do it (but probably not).

But I had to haggle with the owner over the price. For a long time. I hate that. The only haggling I ever do is when I am buying a car. And I even hate the hell out of that. But for a freakin' box of cards? From now on: Online. All the time. And I might return to the hobby shop -- to applaud when he locks up for good.

I got him down to something semireasonable and left with my cards in a huff. That was actually the end of the shopping experience for me.

But before I hit the hobby shop, I was in Target. I happened by the card aisle, where it looked like the place not only was bombed, but that it was bombed back to 2008. Updates & Highlights from 2008, Timeline from 2008, Documentary from 2008. I cannot find 2009 Heritage High Numbers anywhere around here.

So, I settled on a few packs here and there. The last pack I opened yielded the biggest surprise.

First I went with 2 packs of Topps Chrome. I know I bought a hobby box, too, but you can't find the xrefractors in the hobby box. And sometimes ...

... you get two xrefractors in one pack. Even in xrefractor mode, Ryan Braun looks sleepy.

I also selected two packs of O-Pee-Chee. I have a lot of this set, but I'm still not committed to completing it. Sedate me and remove a brain cell or two, and I might commit fully.

There was nothing great there. This insert card was about as thrilling as it got. But I like OPC for its understated quirkiness anyway, so that's cool with me.

Yes, I bought one pack of Documentary. Mostly because it was cheap and because I need like 150 more of the Dodger cards.

I didn't get a single Dodger card. Just stupid stuff like this: a card praising the Reds in a 12-6 win by the Mets.

Finally, I grabbed three packs of SP. I bought these only because it was the only baseball-related brand there that I hadn't purchased yet. I like variety, so I had to try these.

The box was filled. It looked like only one pack had been purchased. When I opened the first two packs, it was the usual ho-hum SP fare. And there was a useless 20th anniversary Tiger Woods card, about the 9th one I've pulled.

Then I opened pack three.

The Clayton Kershaw card was in that pack. I already have this card. But it's always good when Clayton stops by to say hello.

But there was a card in front of the Kershaw card. The third card in the pack.

How about that? That is an autographed card of Kevin Kouzmanoff there. Hmmm, someone collects Kouz cards don't they?

This was quite a surprise. The first time I ever pulled an autographed card out of a loose pack was a major disappointment. This makes up for it.

I haven't opened my hobby box yet. I'm guaranteed of getting two autographed cards. I know those are on-card as opposed to the sticker Kouzmanoff here. But I'll be interest to see if those cards are of anyone more notable.

If they are, you'll know.