Skip to main content

Let's try that again

 
One thing I still haven't learned in all this time blogging is to step away from the blog when there isn't time to post.
 
I've gotten better since the days of two-posts-every-24-hours; I usually give myself two days off a week from the blog. But yesterday I thought it was necessary to post on the anniversary of the Dodgers' first World Series title since I was a fan. It's a big moment in my rooting history and it seemed important to recognize the day.
 
But I had zero time with Thursday's schedule. So I whipped up a post, showing off cards from that 1981 team and didn't have time to check my work. That's never good.
 
In an instant -- almost record time between me publishing and someone commenting -- somebody pointed out an error. I didn't have time to reassemble the cards, but I did. But those cards weren't quite right either (FYI: Ron Roenicke was in the display).
 
I don't like having errors in my posts. I also don't like it when people who don't write a blog of their own seemingly lie in wait to point out something wrong.
 
So I've redone what I deleted yesterday and I've added to it. Below are displays of each of the Dodgers' World Series championship teams since I've been alive, 1965, 1981, 1988 and 2020. I've included everyone who played an inning for the team that year, plus the manager of the team.
 
2020:
 


 
1988:
 

 
1981:
 

 
1965:
 

 
A couple of things to note:
 
1. I was surprised by how consistent in number the teams are, 38, 38, 38 and 33 players. I suppose that makes sense. Teams that win the Series usually don't have to deal with a large number of injuries or under-performing players, which would cause them to add to/subtract from the roster more frequently.
 
2. I was also surprised to see that Jim Gilliam disappeared from Topps cards after the 1964 set, even though his career lasted through 1966. I wonder if he was one of the contract opt-out players that I wrote about a couple of months ago. I didn't come across his name then.
 
3. I pulled from the cards issued the year the Dodgers won the title first and then filled in the blanks. I tried to go with Dodgers cards or at least Dodgers minor league cards. I failed in one case, with Bill Krueger, who played briefly for the Dodgers in 1988. He has a couple minor league cards from '88 but I don't have those. So I had to go with an A's card from '87. It seemed fitting, there were a whole lot of former A's on that Dodgers team.
 
4. Well I guess that 2020 Ben Baller set proved useful.

5. I have got to upgrade some of my Don Drysdale cards.
 
OK, so that was a whole lot of binder shuffling, card-pulling, etc. But I had a little more time for it today. And I had time to cross-reference.
 
I had time to cross-reference once. So if I made a mistake, a player is there who shouldn't be or a player isn't there who should be, please know I'm not being paid for this. It's not like anyone else is pulling all those cards and putting them back (Well, this guy is).
 
I invite you to conduct your own research on your own blog. Maybe I'll stop by and check your work.

Comments

Nachos Grande said…
That '65 photo is a thing of beauty.
George said…
I respect the research and execution!
Old Cards said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
night owl said…
You're pushing it again, Old Cards.
Jafronius said…
Those must have been some pretty snarky nitpicks.
bbcardz said…
It's too bad some of that Twitter negativity seems to be oozing into the comments section of your blog. As far as I'm concerned, this is a gorgeous post. Those naysayers don't really deserve your attention. Like the rest of us you make do with what time and skills you've got. Thanks for sharing these cards.
Night Owl,

The store with Jim Gilliam is that he was released after the 1964 season, then re-signed in early 1965 to beef up their 3rd base corps, but too late for Topps to react.

The same thing happened a year later.
night owl said…
Thank you, Andy.

And, thanks, Jim, I don't remember if I heard that story before.
Chris said…
As a blog reader, I would say that you shouldn't let one careless comment bother you. If you miss a fact or overlook something, or state an opinion that someone doesn't agree with, your readers can gently point that out without being rude.

As a blog author I am constantly proof-reading my posts and editing them before and after publishing to avoid that very issue. And even then I've had some of the same people pick apart my posts. So, yeah.. I know the feeling.

Your WS champion collages are impressive, and I trust your research. I'm sure if I looked up my team's last title-winning roster I would see at least six or seven names that I'd completely forgotten were Red Sox. I certainly wouldn't have their cards in my collection.
Old Cards said…
Out of respect for the fact that this is your blog, I removed my comment. Your mistakes were immaterial to me. I am here for the cards. I just preferred your first reaction on your original post to this post. You write a good blog. You write about all catds from the very old to the current cards and as a result, you have some very loyal readers, followers and commenters. As a collector, I always wondered why Jim Gilliam was left out of the 65 and 66 Topps set. I was not aware of the backstory that Jim provided.
As for Jim Gilliam, I don't have any inside information. I just deduced that after looking at his transactions in Baseball-Reference.

I was wondering the same thing a few years ago when working on completing my 1966 set, and found that info in B-R.
Fuji said…
I don't like having errors in my posts either, but at the same time I accept that I'm not an editor nor do I possess the greatest editing skills. That's why I don't normally point out mistakes. The exception is when it deals with specific facts and I think it'll be beneficial to the author and his/her readers.

Love this idea. I've been burning myself out with sorting the past month or so, but when I finally finish, I think I want to build one of these team sets for the 1989 A's.
Jon said…
Researching and writing don't come naturally to me, and I never proof-read anything, so I'm never surprised, or get upset, when someone points out an error -- even if they're not a blogger. It's not quite the same, but however I do get annoyed when I see someone on Twitter, who doesn't blog, and has never blogged, being dismissive about those who do. Those folks have no clue how much time and effort most of us put into our posts, so when they say something like "Yeah, but how hard can it really be?", I think to myself that it's a good thing that they're not standing right in front of me, otherwise I might be tempted to commit bodily harm upon their person.