Free Updates

Let us tell you when new posts are added!

Email:

Navigation

Categories

Search

Archives

<May 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789

More Links










 Thursday, May 24, 2007
What's the difference between Puckett and Mattingly?
Posted by T.S.

   I read in the newspaper the other day that Henry Aaron was adamant in holding to his announced decision not to be in attendance when Barry Bonds sets the new all-time home run record. The stated reason is that after 23 years of traveling, he simply doesn’t want to go much of anywhere if he can help it.

Hank.jpg   I suspect that’s Henry being the diplomat, and it comes on the heels of comments attributed to Aaron suggesting that the steroid cloud that hovers over the whole enterprise probably played into the decision in some fashion.

   I am fascinated with the prospect of the most important record in sport being broken amid so much ambivalence from virtually every corner: fans, media, MLB, and anyone else with a dog in this fight. Whoops, poor phrasing, especially in a article that somehow involves the city of Atlanta.
Anyway, given the way that hurlers pitch so carefully to Bonds, you never know how long it might take to get home run No. 756 once he’s tied the record. That’s reason enough to credit Aaron’s avowed reason for not budging from home. For the commissioner of baseball, it’s arguably a tougher spot to be in, because I think he’s got to at least take a shot at being on hand, though it’s hard to imagine him trudging after Bonds like a groupie, assuming that it took several games for the historic moment to come about.
  
   And every time the topic comes up, it brings up memories for me from 1969 when I was in the Navy in the Philippines and bunking next to a guy named T.J. Craig, who had grown up in Mobile, Ala. Craig was the saltiest sailor I had ever seen, a tall, lanky, chain-smoking, unflapple black man who fit the definition of cool as completely as anyone I had ever known. About all we had in common was the stuff about tall, lanky and chainsmoking. He was in his 30’s and a Navy lifer; I was only 18 years old and a veteran of about six months in the service. He had a house in Olongapo City outside the naval base, and had, according to local legend, once fallen asleep while supposedly standing at attention at a captain’s mast (disciplinary hearing) where the principle charge was falling asleep while on duty. To an impressionable 18-year-old kid, that seemed like the essence of “cool.”

   Though Aaron was about 200 homers shy of Ruth’s record at the time, Craig and I were convinced that the record was going to fall, and we would sit around the barracks and make plans to meet in Atlanta (we somehow assumed the record would fall at home) to be on hand for the moment that most sportswriters weren’t even conceding was going to happen.

   I didn’t make it to Atlanta in April of 1974; I was in college and working full time at a swanky restaurant in Upstate New York. I have no clue whether Craig ever made it to that historic ballgame, but I certainly thought of him as I watched it on television.
At least we had good intentions.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   A reader e-mailed me the other day about Dale Murphy and his HOF chances (bleak), and somehow or other it triggered the same question about Don Mattingly. I know that playing the numbers game with Hall-of-Fame voting is hardly a foolproof exercise, but it’s hard not to undertake it when the comparisons are so vivid.

   So I ask the question: What’s the difference between Kirby Puckett and Don Mattingly?
I don’t have any problem with Puckett’s election in 2001, but I am more than a little dismayed that Mattingly can be so completely shunned despite having numbers that are essentially indistinguishable from Kirby’s.

   As I noted, there are potential problems with this kind of comparison, but they don’t figure prominently with these two. Same number of games, 11 points in batting average (Puckett .318, Mattingly .307), Donnie Baseball has more doubles, home runs, RBIs and walks, along with striking out about half as often as Puckett.

   That, my friend, is a wash statistically. Much as it did for Murphy, a career that tailed off at the end probably hurts Mattingly, but even that hardly explains that Puckett could have been a first-ballot HOF’er and Mattingly had a high of 29 percent that year (of the needed 75 percent) and has tailed off virtually every year since, down to less than 10 percent this year.

   It certainly is tough to understand, and I’d welcome the readers’ input on why the gap between the two is so dramatic. For a guy who was once considered the biggest star in the game, playing in the Big Apple and enjoying gaudy numbers, etc., it’s almost incomprehensible that his HOF chances could be so slim.

   Whatever happened to that East Coast and New York bias that was always supposed to accrue to former Yankees when the HOF votes were counted?




5/24/2007 9:39:29 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [2]
 Thursday, May 17, 2007
Ripken and Gwynn legacy, plus Aaron's rule
Posted by T.S.



   Seeing all the wire stories this past week about Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn taking their pre-induction tours of the Hall of Fame reminded me about what an extraordinary moment the actual enshrinement must be. I allude, of course, to virtually any ballplayer you might want to name, though of course the subject this year is those two.
   blog.jpg
   I can’t think of any ballplayers from their era who have consistently shown an appreciation and reverence for the game of baseball than Ripken and Gwynn, so one supposes that their wonderment and awe at this private tour was about as genuine as can be. Gwynn's attachment to the iconic Ted Williams is well know, and obviously in Ripken’s case, that probably manifests itself with his historical linkage to Lou Gehrig, so it is inevitable that he will be linked in immortality with the Iron Horse just as he was during the latter part of his playing career. Ripken’s enthusiasm for the game of baseball and its history is refreshing and laudable, but it also reminded me of another upper-rung HOFer who has proved to be a Cooperstown MVP in the memorabilia department.
  
   “I didn’t save anything from when I played, and anything that I ever won is in Cooperstown,” Henry Aaron told me in an interview a couple of years ago. That remembrance popped up as I was writing a feature story for the July issue of our sister publication, Tuff Stuff magazine, that features Hank on the cover and includes the interview inside and another article looking at the tortured fate of Aaron’s final home run ball.
  
   And he’s not kidding about Cooperstown having “anything that I ever won.” The list of Aaron artifacts at the Hall of Fame is incredible: his 1957 MVP Award and World Series ring; all three of his Gold Gloves; bats from milestone home runs, including Nos. 500, 600 714, 716; his 3,000th-hit bat; more than a dozen milestone home run baseballs, including Nos. 500, 600, 700, 714 and 716; jersey and pants from No. 715; his shoes from Nos. 714, 715 and 716; his cap from No. 600; and third base from No. 715.
  
   In a day and age when so many ballplayers wind up placing their artifacts in major auctions, it’s almost inspiring to see a donation to the Hall of Fame of such magnitude. “Henry has been very gracious and amazingly generous,” is the way Brad Horn, HOF communications director put it.
  
   Horn said that the many of the Aaron pieces have come in over a number of years, and that his major awards were donated 20 years ago, roughly five years after Aaron’s induction. A number of the milestone baseballs came from other private collectors, but combined with Aaron’s generosity, have helped make the Aaron presence at the Hall nothing short of spectacular. “He is a player who wanted his legacy preserved here,” Horn added, noting that Aaron is among the most comprehensively represented players in the Hall.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   As much as I admire Ripken and all that he accomplished over the years, I don’t suppose I will ever be able to shake the notion that the whole consecutive games streak was given a prominence well beyond what should have been accorded.

   This hasn’t graduated all the way to being a pet peeve; I would save that appelation for a similar bit of heroics: the hitting streak. What Ripken managed to do over the course of 15-plus years was extraordinary and certainly a marvelous testament to his work ethic, his durability and his dedication to the game, but ultimately a bit overblown because the point of the game is winning, not simply showing up for work.
  
   Still, as I noted above, I get a lot more worked about hitting streaks, which are, in my opinion, little more than a parlor trick that was elevated to mythic status by one Joseph Paul DiMaggio. What the Yankee Clipper pulled off that extraordinary summer was an MLB curiosity that was as much the result of timing and the power of the New York media as it was one of the great feats in the history of the game.

   It says here that what Ted Williams accomplished in that remarkable 1941 season was more significant than what Joe did. Here’s the rub: getting a hit in consecutive games doesn’t necessarily benefit the dominant agenda item of winning. Would you rather manage a team with a .276 hitter who somehow managed to discreetly sprinkle those hits out one per game for 30 or 40 games, or a guy who hit .380 but somehow managed to go hitless right smack dab in that hypothetical 40-game stretch.

   And I know it’s considered heresy to question the legitimacy of one of the most legendary “accomplishments” in baseball history, but there it is. And I also know that as quixotic undertakings go, trying to convince baseball fans that Joe’s 56-game streak was no big deal ranks right up there on the futility scale.





5/17/2007 11:45:57 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [6]
 Wednesday, May 09, 2007
The Super Man of Dover, Del.
Posted by T.S.



   A colleague e-mailed me a link to an ESPN.com news article the other day relating to former San Francisco 49er John Taylor, which in turn brought back memories of an unusual collectible (shown here) and a wonderful time in my life more than 20 years ago.
 ts12.jpg 
   The “Where Are They Now?” feature on the ESPN site told how Taylor had been working for nearly a decade driving a truck for his own firm, J.T. Taylor Trucking, which he started in 1998. “I knew trucking before I knew football,” Taylor is quoted in the article saying. “My grandfather and all of my uncles drove, so I grew up around it.”
  
   The story noted that Taylor drives his W900L Kenworth cross country from his home in California to Philadelphia every week. He and his wife, Elana, who sometimes accompanies him on his cross-country trips, have two daughters in college – one at Utah State and another at Taylor’s alma mater, Delaware State.
  
   Which is roughly where I come in. In 1984, only recently married and relatively new to Delaware, having moved from Albany, N.Y., a year earlier, I went to work at Delaware State in the sports information department. Though I initially had to travel more than an hour each week three days a week, it ended up being one of the neatest jobs I ever had, and one I stuck with until 1988 or 1989, despite the lengthy commute.

   The image shown depicts a promotional flyer we created in the sports information department to advocate for All-America balloting for Taylor. I met Taylor a couple of times when he visited the sports information department offices, and he was a very quiet guy, but he spoke volumes every time he took the field. I don’t recall if one of those meetings was after we came out with the Time-like flyer, but even if it had been, I wouldn’t have had the foresight to ask him to sign one.

   In all my years of watching college football, I’ve never seen another instance where an athlete was so clearly head-and-shoulders above his level of competition. Taylor was a wide receiver, but the Division 1AA Hornets, admittedly one of the powerhouse teams in the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference in the mid-1980s, were a running team first and foremost. And besides, even if we had been more inclined to the passing game, we would have been hard pressed to come up with a quarterback who could consistently get the ball to him.

   When I came up with the idea of the look-alike Time magazine cover, I had to do a pretty serious sales job on school administrators, who were fearful that Time editors might somehow object. Ultimately, we prevailed in getting it done, due largely to the efforts of the sports information director at the time, Maxine Lewis. Like Taylor, she went on to bigger things, snagging a job with ABC Sports in New York City, including a stint working with legendary broadcaster Keith Jackson.
Eventually, I had to surrender those duties when the demands of being the editor of a weekly newspaper in northern Delaware became so great that it wasn’t feasible to drive down to Dover even once a week.

   But as I noted above, I had a lot of fun on that job. I was the official scorer for the baseball team, and frequently traveled with the women’s basketball team, in addition to doing the routine things for the sports information department. I was the rare white guy on a campus of an historically black school, and took a lot of good-natured ribbing from the gals on the basketball team.
   If anybody’s ever seen this Time flyer before today or have any other information about Taylor and some oddball collectibles, I’d appreciate if they let me know via the blog.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   A reader (Ken) commented about last week’s blog that detailed my concern over the omnipresent commercialization in Major League Baseball. Ken described himself as a baseball purist who hates the designated hitter, but noted that the purist in him doesn’t object to the “proliferation of sponsorships everywhere.”

   He concedes that while he once loathed the rotating signs behind home plate, he’s actually found useful products and services from same. He also points out, quite fairly, I would add, that the advertisements on the fences can add color to the ballpark and at the same time hit the nostalgia buttons for the good old days.

   I can’t take issue with most of what he said, though I’d stop well short of the part about finding useful products and services from the home plate Ad-O-Ramas, but I’m not a very good consumer anyway. He’s also right about some of the throwback advertising signs adding color in the outfield.
“As for ads on uniforms, it works for the most popular sport in the world: soccer – and it worked for my Little League team,” was Ken’s final observation.

   For once, I am speechless.








5/9/2007 4:15:52 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [3]
 Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Collectors ultimately decide what is collectible
Posted by T.S.

tsblog.jpgMay 2, 2007

  
One of the toughest things for hobby old-timers like myself is adjusting to the changing dynamics of the business end of things, which, of course, so dramatically alters the whole landscape of what is available to collect.
   For many years as I struggled with these questions, I used to admire Bob Lemke’s ability to adapt and still find ways to enjoy the hobby. When the all-encompassing changes started with a vengeance just after the labor stoppage and World Series cancellation in 1994, Lemke (former editor of the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards) rather adroitly started dabbling with this or that insert series, putting together some nifty displays showcasing cards that would have been regarded as quite exotic for the time.
   Well, the exotic threshold has been ratcheted upwards in dizzying fashion since that time, with the most profound changes being the emphasis on autographs and to a lesser degree memorabilia scraps, all part and parcel of an even more stunning escalation in pack prices.
   While I am glad that the manufacturers have figured out a way forward that still provides profitability in a marketplace that has contracted to perhaps 25 percent of what it was 15 years ago, I can’t shake the uneasiness that I feel about the underlying structure of the business.
   It’s essentially the same reason I worried about the overall economics of MLB, which seem to me to be more precarious than the giddy numbers tossed around by officials. My concern is that the game is already on a footing that requires such huge gross revenue numbers that ultimately all of the accommodations made to ensure those dollar streams are going to be monumental ... and maybe even scary.
   Certainly it’s just anecdotal, but almost every time I watch a SportsCenter highlight on ESPN, the cameras seem to show vast numbers of empty seats, even in what I would consider prime locations. I am enough of a conspiracy buff to even postulate that the “highlights” provided are quite closely cropped to ameliorate the impact of so many empty chairs. I know that may be a bit of a stretch, and I concede that MLB reports record attendance totals almost every year, but I can’t shake the notion simply because it seems to be so remarkably conspiratorial.
   My real concern is that, ultimately, the scramble for dollars over time is going to create sideshow distractions and advertising revenue scrambles that go far beyond the unseemly to the point of being thoroughly obnoxious. We already have sponsors for everything from the seventh-inning stretch to the batting order, and the whizzing and whirring graphics on the TV screen that frantically milk every available promotional buck have long since passed the point of being annoying.
   MLB will likely do its best to temper the impact of all of this, but if past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior (and it is), then ultimately some of the accommodations are going to get truly ugly. I simply can’t shake the fear that the seemingly subtle erosion of so many of the traditions that underpin collectors’ love of the game loom large; when they get around to putting a Valvoline patch and Dr. Pepper logo on the jerseys, perhaps the alarm will be more widespread.
   In the card collecting hobby, one of the responses to that kind of revenue pressure has been to make the cards more expensive, which more accurately is a result of the companies’ almost intractable belief in the idea of contrived scarcity. I know the reliance on this idea has colored much of the strategic thinking by the card companies since 1994, along with the “lottery mentality” of being able to open a pack of brand-new cards and suddenly find a single pasteboard with enough oomph to handle a year of tuition at a mid-range state college.
   It is a well-regarded but often largely ignored truism in almost any hobby that attempts by manufacturers to designate something as a “collectible” are fraught with conflicting components. Collectors, the legend goes, are the ones who decide what is or isn’t collectible, and that grand determination is something that is largely arrived at over a significant period of time.
   I am rooting for all the autographs and jersey clippings and chunks of stadium seats to flourish and prosper over time, but mostly I root for the hobby itself. And at the risk of sounding like an old coot, I would offer the reminder that simply putting together card sets remains a pretty neat thing to do. It merely gets pushed from the forefront amid the clamor of dollars, but there are still thousands of collectors of all ages who worship at this decidedly egalitarian shrine.
Thank heaven.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   And not to put too fine a point on it, but I wanted to relate a brief story from a visit to The Ballpark at Arlington a couple of years ago. I flew in on a Thursday or Friday night for a press conference the next day at the Donruss-Playoff headquarters, and decided to squeeze in a Rangers game that evening, even though my arrival time at the airport would make it a close call to get to the park before the game started.
   Though I am not the type (nor financially able) to slip a cabbie an extra $20 to “step on it,” I did my best to illustrate to the driver my desire for urgency. I don’t wear a wristwatch, so I don’t know what time we got to the park, but I thought I was doing OK. I sprinted (what passes for sprinting for me) through the gate, and as I got to the concession area near my section, I said to myself, “Hey, I’m fine.” The game couldn’t have started yet because there wasn’t so much as a murmur from the crowd. I figured that batting practice was still going on.
   As I got walked down the tunnel into the section of stands and looked for the outfield scoreboard, it turned out it was the bottom of the second inning.
   I grew up going to 12-16 Mets games every year starting in 1964 with the opening of Shea Stadium, and I’d also go to a few Yankees games as well, primarily to see Mickey Mantle. Anyway, I’m used to screaming and hollering, so the polite, garden-salad-munching suburbanites at the modern ballpark sometime throw me for a loop. I’m accustomed to a certain bawdy element to the game, so the genteel quality of the folks who shell out as much for one box seat as I might cough up for car payment doesn’t always compute.
   But that’s just me.




5/2/2007 9:40:51 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [3]
 Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Mr. Clemens, you're late for work again
Posted by T.S.


   Am I the only baseball fan in the world who is stupendously annoyed to the point of distraction by the parlor dance every spring that goes on with a certain Hall-of-Fame-bound pitcher? I speak, of course, about Roger Clemens, who for several years now has been allowed to bless us with his presence on the Major League Baseball scene at precisely the moment that suits him and his busy Roger Clemensblog.jpgschedule.
   To answer my own question, I would appear to be, since at least in the newspapers and magazines that I read, hardly a discouraging word is heard about conduct that would have been unthinkable for an earlier generation of ballplayers.
   The most compelling, repetitive aspect of spring for me recently has been a stunned disbelief that anybody tolerates the prima donna that Clemens has become by virtue of his seven Cy Young Awards and the admittedly remarkable ability to keep his heater humming past age 40.
   I have joked that perhaps one of these days he’s going to lament that he would prefer only to pitch in odd-numbered innings on alternating Thursdays in cities that conform to specific demographic, sociological and climatological guidelines set forth by Clemens’ agent. Gee, sounds silly when you put it like that, but only about 12 percent sillier than the ground rules the pitcher actually tosses out there every spring.
   I know that it’s customary for older folks to carp about changes that take place over time, and indeed, some of that grousing can be discounted or even ignored based simply on that disclaimer, but the pesky case of Roger Clemens is – ironically – a very special case, perhaps even as unique and exalted as Clemens himself believes. Just not in the way that he believes.
   But in this one, the implications for the game that I have loved for more than a half-century are profound. With all the historic changes that MLB has endured since I started paying attention in the late 1950s, the pampered, indulgent treatment afforded Clemens is the most discouraging because it is, at its core, the most dramatically antithetical to the fundamental underpinnings of a team game.
   The staggering salaries that are doled out routinely to players who couldn’t make a turnstile spin if their pensions depended on it (fortunately for them, they do not) have turned off millions of fans, but fiddling like this with the team concept and the responsibilities that have traditionally been attached to it is even scarier.
   And I am not bitter that Clemens is headed to Cooperstown (he’s asked that he be allowed to be portrayed in street clothes on his HOF plaque and that the plaque itself will only be exhibited from June 15 to Labor Day). I was always a Doc Gooden guy, and I used to track their careers, head to head, as I assumed they both would eventually ascend to immortality. I didn’t dislike Clemens; I just rooted for Doc.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   Ed Tyree is one of the nicest gentlemen I’ve encountered in this hobby, and that’s saying something, because over the nearly 30 years that I’ve been going to shows and otherwise taking part in the social aspects of collecting, I’ve met and often become friends with a whole bunch of nice people.
   I’ve only met Ed Tyree a couple of times, quite a few years back when we (Krause Publications) still used to run the Tuff Stuff shows in Richmond, Va. But we’ve talked over the phone from time to time, and he is a frequent contributor to our letters to the editor section in Sports Collectors Digest. And those letters usually have 1980s National League slugger Dale Murphy front and center on Tyree’s agenda.
   Ed has made it something of a crusade to get Murphy more HOF “cred” than he currently receives – about 9 percent in the 2007 vote – and it’s an alternately noble and quixotic undertaking. Tyree has gotten a good deal of newspaper coverage for the Murphy candidacy, and he has frequently written to Commissioner Selig and the Hall of Fame to tout Murphy’s numbers, but it has to be disheartening to see such paltry vote totals for a player of such prominence for the better part of a decade.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   I am still trying to get comfortable with this blogging business, and one of the areas where I think my unfamiliarity shows pretty plainly is in the area of responding to e-mails that show up as a result of earlier blogs or are simply commentary about the hobby in general or SCD in particular.
   One of the areas where I get snagged is in the notion that I have to respond to every allegation and assertion, either in this fashion or individually. I’ll do my best to react to such commentary, but it’s kind of an old rhetorical trick to suggest that such responses by definition have to be all-encompassing and that failing to address any specific item constitutes evasion. Ultimately, I’ll always be faced with picking and choosing topics.
   To the questions about how can a reporter cover hobby figures who are friends, I can only suggest that the relationship with our advertisers is not the adversarial paradigm (I’ve always wanted to get that word into a column, er, blog) that you might find between the fourth estate and government, for example. It is a major element of my job to balance friendships I have with any number of dealers and hobby figures with the need to fairly serve the readers and I try to do that on a daily basis.
   I count Alan Rosen as a friend, but that’s a designation I would also apply to a number of people in the hobby that circumstances dictate are fequently part of our news coverage. I would list an expansive list of other well-known hobby figures that I regard as friends, but my fear is I would leave somebody out and maybe hurt some feelings.
   As my old third-grade teacher used to say, “You know who you are.” And I think that’s part and parcel of the hobby. I have a number of people in the hobby who are mad at me, in some cases perhaps justifiably, but it’s not something I am proud of or wear as a badge of honor. Any evaluation of our publication or any other is going to have to be done through the prism of an imperfectly crafted relationship; expecting it to be something more grandly contentious doesn’t push the debate forward.
   It is my hope that this blog and by extension SCD will be fertile ground for broader debates about the issues affecting the hobby. The new ground rules, which I have conceded I am only now barely getting accustomed to, make things easy enough that the content can be as weighty as the serious issues facing collectors or significantly less than that.
   I am rooting for the former.

*  *  *  *  *  *




4/24/2007 12:03:07 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [9]
 Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Kibitzing about SCD and a solid Gold book
Posted by T.S.


   We’ve gotten a lot of response to our various blogs in the first three weeks, and the most compelling aspect that I’ve noted is my own relative unfamiliarity with how to respond. My natural inclination is to respond to the broader audience in a subsequent blog – like this one, for example – but I do understand that not everybody who reads the blog also reads the “Comments” section that follows at the end. Still, my hope would be that the back-and-forth nature of it would serve all readers, with the understanding that enough context is provided.

   Much of the initial commentary from readers hasn’t touched upon specific items in the blogs, but rather upon criticism of SCD and my stewardship of same. Some of the commentary seems thoughtful and well considered; some of it is more strident and occasionally personal. Either way, I need to develop a thicker skin and kind of roll with the odd punch here and there.

   Concerning some of the allegations that SCD does not take an aggressive enough stance on problematic issues in the hobby, I would only suggest that we try to address controversies like trimmed and altered cards, fraudulent autographs, etc., through interviews and profiles of any number of hobby professionals. The criticism about how much we’ve hammered the card companies about the redemption process might be more legitimate. We have taken note of the inherent problems that surround the idea of redemptions, but we’ve hardly taken it up as an editorial causis belli (I just wanted to get some latin into the blog).

   A couple of readers complained about our relationship with advertisers in general and one in particular; there’s not much to say in that regard other than to restate that our magazine holds an obligation to both readers and advertisers, and we try to navigate that tricky middle ground that ostensibly separates the two. I say “ostensibly,” because the distinction between the two is hardly absolute. Creating a venue for buying and selling cards and memorabilia was what gave life to SCD 34 years ago, and it’s never been a traditional adversarial relationship because everybody who buys stuff ends up selling stuff sooner or later.

   Questions about our delivery of SCD are even more discouraging, because it’s an area we know is one of the most important components of the magazine and also – to our great frustration – an area where we don’t have as much control as we would like. We have worked mightily with a number of alternate solutions to deliver the magazine over the years, but ultimately wind up being at the mercy of the U.S. Postal Service.

   We never miss any deadlines with the magazine; one the same day every week, it’s sent from our printer to the regional postal facility in Chicago where it gets routed around the country. It would almost be unprecedented for a particular delivery snafu to be connected with something we’ve done, rather than something linked to the handling by the Postal Service.

   For our customers, if that sounds like a lame excuse, I would insist it is not. The ultimate responsibility for getting SCD into a reader’s hands in a timely fashion is ours, and we will continue to work to ensure that, but the reality if that our ability to impact the whole process is not nearly as significant as we would like.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   One of the cool things that we used to do here in Iola was to hold a special promotion each spring called “Whatzit Day.” The idea was that people from the community would bring their collectibles to our offices and the editors from our various divisions would evaluate the material and provide details – including but not limited to potential value – to the collector.

   It was always an extremely popular event, and I liked doing it just to see the items that collectors would bring in. The antiques end of things was by far the busiest department, but there would occasionally be some good cards or sports memorabilia that would turn up.
Inspired by that idea (and, obviously, the iconic “Memorabilia Road Show” on PBS), we added a “What’s It Worth?” component to our annual SportsFest Show in suburban Chicago. The first edition, held at last year’s show in early June at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont, Ill., was a major hit, with perhaps 150 collectors bringing in material that ranged from the pedestrian to the sublime.

   A USA Today writer and photographer also turned up at the show, producing a piece that ran in the paper the following week, with nearly a full page dedicated to the “What’s It Worth” program, including several spectacular photos both in the paper itself and on the USA Today website.
So with that kind of history, naturally, we’re doing it again, this time at the new SportsFest site at the Renaissance Schaumburg Hotel and Convention Center, just a hoot and a holler from the former site (about 10 minutes northwest). The show runs June 8-10, with the “What’s It Worth” session slated for 1-5 p.m. on Saturday, June 9. For more information, go to www.sportsfestshow.com.

   By the way, the last time we held the “Whatzit Day” program here in Iola, the neatest sports item brought in for examination was a complete set of 1933 Goudeys, all in vg-ex condition, but all from the Goudey files, since each card had a nice, round punch hole squarely in the middle at the top of the card. Not bad for such a small community, eh?

Schlossberg.jpg*  *  *  *  *  *

   Those kinds of programs do wonderful things in terms of introducing and often connecting the broader public to our hobby. Dan Schlossberg, certainly one of the most highly regarded and prolific sports authors in the country, does a nice job of accomplishing that very same goal in his latest book, Baseball Gold: Mining Nuggets From Our National Pastime.

   Chalk this up under the old dictum about “unintended consequences,” but intended or not, our hobby gets a boost in a marvelous, 400-page book that includes so much hobby-related art that it could be “ripped from the pages of SCD,” as they say.

   In a book filled with fascinating facts and factoids about everything from baseball history, stadiums, fans and rules to teams, trades traditions and spring training, the accompanying art is nearly perfect. In addition to images from the Hall of Fame and a vast array of photos of cards, souvenir programs, equipment and jerseys, there are literally dozens of pieces of original art from the Bill Goff Inc. stable of artists, a similar number of Ronnie Joyner caricatures and even the old “Ripley’s Believe It or Not” cartoons that touched upon the world of sports.

   All those artists appear routinely in the pages of SCD, as does Schlossberg himself, who is an SCD columnist. The book can be ordered at www.triumphbooks.com, and is also available at Barnes & Noble bookstores nationwide.




4/17/2007 10:00:24 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [5]
 Monday, April 09, 2007
Musings on Satchel and Robby
Posted by T.S.



    If you’ve ever wondered about the iconic status of Topps, you need look no further than Satchel Paige’s 1953 card, which is easily the nicest card that exists of the legendary figure from the Negro leagues. I mention the designation of Topps as an icon in this regard, but I really should refer to it as is The Merriam Webster Topps Dictionary. That’s where the iconic status comes from: when your typos wind up becoming firmly entrenched in the lexicon.

   Topps misspelled Satchel on the only card the company ever made of Paige, adding an extra “l” to Satchel. For thousands of casual fans, the 1953 Topps card was the first and in many cases only exposure that they had to the most famous player from the Negro leagues, and thus the misspelled 53Satch.jpgfirst name became all but institutionalized for several generations of fans.

The 1953 Topps Satchel Paige card is shown at right.

   Oh, I’ll admit that it has been largely cleaned up now by the expansion of the Information Age and the dawn of the Internet, but there are, no doubt, hundreds of artifacts out there with the misspelling. I was at Mike Shannon’s restaurant in St. Louis several weeks ago, and in the “Hall of Fame” room in the lower level of the restaurant, there was some artwork with the misspelling, which got me to recounting to some of the other diners about the power or the original Topps mistake.
  
   The 1953 Topps card included the same misspelling on the back, giving additional weight to it, reinforcing the initial mistake. Lots of eBay listings carry the extra “l” and some early auction catalogs had it as well, but like I say, the Information Age has helped clear it up over the last 20 years or so and the dramatically increased exposure for the Negro leagues hasn’t hurt, either.


*  *  *  *  *  *


   Now here’s a tangentially related story that I assume Ole’ Satch might have approved of (this is the Blogosphere, so I am willing to loosen up and end a sentence with a preposition). In 1971, I started working at the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon in my last year in the Navy, and one of my first reactions as I waddled around the 17 miles or corridors was, quite literally, a question. “How come there are so many toilets in this place?” I asked myself.

   It really was one of the first things that struck me about the building, and I had walked a good chunk of the corridors in the various rings, not because of an interest in aerobic exercise (70 percent of Americans smoked in those days), but rather because I wanted to see as many of the museum-quality ship models that were strewn about as I could.

   Anyway, it only took 36 years to clear up the question about the toilets. From a book I am currently reading about the Pentagon, The House of War by James Carroll, comes word that there were 200 of them all told. Turns out that when the place was officially opened in 1943, President Roosevelt showed up for the ribbon cutting and spotted a “Whites Only” sign over one of the restrooms, a Jim Crow vestige obviously aimed at making the facility comply with Arlington, Va., segregation prohibitions. So that’s why there were so many of them!

   FDR promptly told Pentagon officials (the 1943 equivalent of) “I don’t think so.” Toilet accomodations were thusly integrated, making the Pentagon the only place in Arlington to have such egalitarian ground rules in that particular area.

   And there’s an epilogue, too. The next spring, the Weathermen underground organization blew up one of our beloved restrooms in a May 19, 1972, bit of terrorism that was part of their protest of President Nixon’s bombing of Hanoi during the Vietnam War. I remember the various demonstrations blocking our ability to get to work one day that May, and I remember seeing the blown-up men’s room, though I wasn’t working at the time of the explosion.


*  *  *  *  *  *


   In sticking to the integration theme, I am sure you’ve noticed that a number of Major League Baseball players have decided to wear No. 42 on April 15 to honor Jackie Robinson and mark the 60th anniversary of his breaking the color line. Ken Griffey Jr. was reportedly the one who pitched the idea to Commissioner Selig, who quite rightly was enthusiastic about the idea.

   So the “retirement” of No. 42, which had been engineered by MLB a decade earlier at the 50th anniversary of the historic event, was given a one-day moratorium for the tribute, and a number of other players, including one Barry Bonds, quickly signed on.
Robinson.jpg
   I think it’s a great idea, and I also like the idea because of the link to our hobby. I suspect that by the time April 15 rolls around, every team will have a No. 42 out there, creating a number of wonderful collectibles in the process. We asked MLB officials what was going to happen to the jerseys; initial word was that there was no official word yet. The MLB.com site winds up the repository for an imposing pile of game-used stuff, so I assume that’s an option, or maybe the option.

Original Jackie Robinson artwork by Darryl Vlasak (at right)

   It would also seem to be a great way to raise money for charitable purposes, something that MLB has done in a big way for many years in conjunction with The Jackie Robinson Foundation. How much would somebody pay for a game-used No. 42 jersey used by Ken Griffey Jr. and signed by him? I dunno, but I bet it’s a pile.

   A number of newspapers recounted the good-news story of modern ballplayers offering such proper genuflection to one of the giants who came before them; they then fouled off the rest of the story with a tortured linkage.

   Several newspapers in MLB cities juxtaposed the No. 42 jersey story with the yesterday’s news demographic dirge about how the overal number of blacks has declined in Major League Baseball over the last two decades.

   Gimmee a break! While the change in MLB’s demographics is a legitimate story – think about baseball’s expanded and wildly successful efforts to tap Latin American nations for talent – linking it to what Jackie Robinson did is silly and ultimately trivializes what he accomplished.

   What Robinson faced in 1947 – and indeed, what a generation of black ballplayers faced – was a brutal, malignant institution that denied the basic humanity of an entire race. The decline in the numbers of blacks playing Major League Baseball – now below 10 percent – has been the result of a number of factors, virtually all rising independent of one another and hardly the result of any Pumpise Green-like quota somehow quietly installed by bigoted execs eager to cling to some final shadow of the color line.


*  *  *  *  *  *

   The last bit of business in this blog entry will be to address – albeit a bit collectively – some of the postings to my earlier blogs. Some of them included the kind of broader criticisms of SCD that we get – and take quite seriously – but don’t necessarily lend themselves to individual responses via the blog.

   So I’ll note that we sincerely value our readers and our advertisers, and that auction advertising is indeed a major component of the magazine. Like everything else, SCD has changed dramatically over the past 10-15 years, with a good deal of that change dictated by the 800-lb. elephant in the room: the Internet. The articles are not paid for by advertisers; any time we do special sections with linked editorial and advertising content we diligently label the pages thusly.

   The charges that our coverage has diverted away from new cards is a fair one; that was an editorial decision that was deemed of strategic importance quite a few years ago, and in any event, we feel our sister publication, Tuff Stuff magazine, offers a great repository for articles and features about the newer material. I could also add that the change is hardly absolute: our plan is to have the 2007 Topps Heritage cards on the cover of this week’s issue of SCD (May 4).

   Other criticisms of individual advertisers also must face a collective response: grousing about specific businesses and individuals is, I guess, one of the democratic aspects of the Blogosphere, but it doesn’t strike me as particularly engrossing debate for forums where we try to involve our readers in some of the important issues facing the hobby. Companies that provide newly created autographed memorabilia, for example, confront a host of costs and expenses, and then price their material accordingly. Oh wait, that’s what virtually every business in America does, quite routinely, and consumers respond in the fashion that suits them.

   As for carping about Mr. Mint, whom I would quite unabashedly characterize as a friend, all I can say is that the denunciations seem “sooo last week.”

   See you next week.


*  *  *  *  *  *





4/9/2007 3:40:21 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [4]
 Monday, April 02, 2007
Too much boo hoo about Barry
Posted by T.S.


   As readers of my column in SCD are no doubt aware, I am the self-appointed world’s greatest Henry Aaron fan, an informal designation that speaks to nothing more than my unrelenting ardor and half-century-plus of serious campaigning on his behalf. I offer that as a disclaimer ... and as evidence that what I am about to write warrants a bit of extra credibility since it defies conventional wisdom and comes from someone who generally writes with a pronounced pro-Aaron slant.
  
   People discussing the approaching demise of Henry’s All-time Home Run King status need to lighten up and simply accept the moment with whatever degree of disdain, disbelief, disgust, disinterest, disregard or elation that seems appropriate for them personally.
BONDS1.jpg
   What prompted this was an editorial in the largest newspaper in our state (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) noting that the editorial “they” would be placing an asterisk after Barry Bonds’ name if and when he passes Hank’s No. 755. This solemn edict stems from Bonds’ alleged link to steroids.

   Aside from the obvious silliness of individual newspapers deciding which Major League Baseball records they will ratify and which they will deem unworthy, you are confronted with the unworkability of the whole idea. If you look hard enough, you can find any number of reasons to question the validity of records; we just put extra import on this Bonds situation due to “drugs,” because we are at war with them and have been for more than 40 years.

   In fairness to the Journal Sentinel guys (non-gender-specific usage), I suspect they weren’t that serious or really literally intend to follow through with the asterisk part. Roger Maris didn’t really get one, either.

   There is also much debate about what Bug Selig’s role should be in marking the occasion of the record being toppled, a faux controversy that winds up being mindless fodder for sportswriters.

   Of course Selig has to try to be present when the record falls, and I emphasize “try” because it’s an inexact science and the commissioner of baseball can’t be expected to hang around the ballpark like a groupie for a couple of weeks in the event that Bonds doesn’t sock No. 756 in his usual one homer every 11 at bats or whatever.

   With that caveat included, how could Selig not make an attempt to attend? Why would he want to feed the controversy surrrounding his beloved game by seemingly turning up his nose as the most important record in baseball history falls? It’s a no-brainer.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   When is a Hall of Famer not a Hall of Famer? Or more precisely, when is a non-Hall of Famer actually a Hall of Famer? Pete Rose would be an example of the former: a player with the visibility and perhaps popularity of a Hall of Famer (including card prices), though he may never actually have the official designation.

   Marvin Miller would be the preeminent example of the latter. Both legends are appearing at MAB Celebrity’s April 28-29 show in Secaucus, N.J., with both signing that Sunday afternoon. Miller got rudely dissed by the HOF’s Veterans Committee in late February in a vote that defies understanding as much as it begs for a change in the way the voting is done.

   It says here that Miller will ultimately be in the Hall of Fame, one way or another. There’s too much credibility for the organization itself at stake in the process for him not to eventually be enshrined. Miller is 90 years old, so the debate about whether he’ll be around to enjoy sitting in one of those rocking chairs on the front porch of the Hotel Otesaga is legitimate, but there shouldn’t be any real argument about his eventually getting a plaque.

   It may not be on par with William Gladstone’s quotation about “Justice delayed is justice denied,” but it seems particularly unfair to me for someone to be excluded from enjoying the ultimate recognition of a life’s work simply because the process of according that recognition is clumsy and inefficient.

   Dick Gordon (full disclosure: a friend for more than 20 years) is bringing Miller to that MAB show (www.mabcelebrity.com), and like so many of us, he was thoroughly disappointed and disheartened by the HOF voting results announced on Feb. 27. Miller is appearing at a show with a dozen Hall of Famers, another eventual shoo-in (Ken Griffey), a player who should be a HOFer someday (Andre Dawson), a whole bunch of rookies of the year, and Pete.

*  *  *  *  *  *

   I bet it would make an interesting poll to ask fans whose facsimile autograph was on the very first baseball glove that they owned when they were young. For me it was Moose Skowron on a Denkert glove, but it turns out that the whole idea of attaching the ersatz autograph of your favorite player to a store-model glove is apparently in decline, having lost favor for a number of reasons over the last two decades or so.

   Our own Joe Phillips, SCD columnist and the editor of The Glove Collector, the online (www.glovecollector.com) and printed newsletter, was quoted in the New York Times Sunday Sunday edition on April 1 in article entitled “Gloves Without Names.”

   Citing Phillips, the article noted that in the late 1970s about 70 percent of store-model gloves came with the facsimile autograph; now, the figure is closer to 80 percent without a signature.

   Apparently the combination of increased licensing fees, declining demand and changes in the way gloves are wholesaled around the country came together to spell the demise of the once iconic product. The example noted in the article was a youngster in New England coming upon an Alex Rodriguez model glove at the local sporting goods store, giving our hypothetical Beantowner simply another reason not to buy the glove.

   The executive quoted, Tom DeSimone, a buyer for Modell’s, did point out that his best-selling glove is actually a “relatively inexpensive $29.99 Derek Jeter model intended for children under 12.”
I wonder how many adults end up buying that particular item as something to be used to get a real Derek Jeter signature on it?

*  *  *  *  *  *

   Speaking of player endorsements, probably the most famous instance of that coming up as an issue would be the T206 Honus Wagner card. While the folks outside the hobby often ascribe the scarcity of the Wagner card to an alleged distaste for tobacco products that Honus was said to have had (contradicted somewhat by his 1948 Leaf card), hobby veterans often put stock in yet another view.

   The seemingly more sophisticated take on the T206 rarity is that Honus objected to not be properly compensated for using his image, since he was arguably the brightest star in the baseball universe at the time.

   Either way, the T206 Wagner has been one of the most widely reprinted cards in hobby history. The result of that is, of course, that we get on average a handful of phone calls every year with the excited fan clutching a T206 Wagner in one paw while breathlessly asking me about its value.

   I routinely ask the collector to turn to the card’s back and read me what it says. “This card is one of the most coveted in the sports card hobby, selling for as much as $80,000,” is roughly what they end up telling me in reading from the back of the “card.” And then I have to gently explain that the $80,000 figure is a fairly conspicuous hint about the authenticity of the pasteboard.

   I am not sure (I could ask noted autograph expert Mike Gutierrez), but I have a suspicion that it’s a lot more fun to be the guy on the PBS television show “Antiques RoadShow” telling some unsuspecting collector that is memorabilia is worth a kazillion dollars more than he/she thought, rather than being the guy who ended up bursting their bubble.





4/2/2007 3:40:42 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [6]
 Monday, March 26, 2007
Into the Blogosphere
Posted by T.S.

    This is my blog. I am a 56-year-old formerly computer-phobic weenie who now finds himself quite unceremoniously propelled into cyberspace. I am the editor of Sports Collectors Digest; I have been here at SCD for nearly 14 years and worked for several years before that as a freelancer. I would still have the original Topps cards that I bought as a 9-year-old in 1959, since I politely asked my mother not to throw them away while I was overseas in the Navy from 1968-72, but I have upgraded most of them over time. If that sounds like I am – at some bizarre level – ashamed of ts1.jpghaving done so, then there it is.

   I am not so much a reluctant cyberspace traveler as I am a bit intimidated by the undertaking. That’s odd, since I trace my computer roots back to 1969 when I operated a UNIVAC 1004 computer at the Naval Communications Center at Subic Bay in the Philippines. That particular contraption was roughly the size of old Crosley Field; as the computer age rolled on through nearly four decades, the actual hardware kept getting smaller and smaller, as did my comfort level with each new advancing generation.

   I whine like this because I welcome any help that loyal readers can provide in terms of pushing me in this or that direction, with this or that nuance or emphasis. Remember, I was the guy who thought Pong was breathtaking in 1975 with its graphic sophistication and frenetic pace.

   So with that convoluted introduction, here I go. I will be updating this periodically, as they say, so hopefully there will be good reason to revisit from time to time. Five, four, three, two, one ...

 * * * * *

   One of the main reasons I love going to shows, aside from seeing old friends and great cards and collectibles, are the reminders that I get from those very same friends and collectibles about why our hobby has such an enormous underlying strength and resilience.

   For many years when I would get treasured opportunities to visit with famed collector Barry Halper, I would come away from virtually every meeting with an overwhelming admiration for his scholarly interest in the game of baseball and its history, rather than an overriding preoccupation with investment value or other such details concerning dollars and cents.

   Naysayers might pooh pooh all that, saying, with some sarcasm, something to the effect of, “Yeah, and he wound up with nearly $40 million for all his scholarly pursuits.” True enough, but I can promise you that when you talked with Halper about his stuff (which will be the kind of exchanges I’ll be featuring in this blog), it wasn’t about what he paid or what he could get for something: it was about the item and its history, and no detail was spared.

   Anyway, when I was at the Chicago Sun-Times Show over the St. Patrick’s Day Weekend, I ran into a host of old friends – just as I usually do at George Johnson’s biannual show, our own SportsFest show, the Philly shows and other major East Coast events (read auctions) and at the National Convention.

   And speaking of the National Convention, I briefly saw John Broggi, National Convention co-manager, who was there in his official capacity to check out details for the 2008 National. I also ran into one of my favorite people in the hobby, Steve Juskewycz, president of Megacards, the company that produced the wonderful Conlon Collection cards from 1991-95. Juskewycz is a standout golfer; he was buying autographs from another friend, Kip Ingle, who is regarded as one of the top sources in the hobby for golf items.

   On Saturday at the show – St. Patrick’s Day – I was walking around in a garish, bright-green jacket, a bit of sartorial splendor mildly out of character for somebody who dresses in the dark and thinks that “dressing up” means finding a T-shirt that doesn’t have any advertising logos on it.

   Anyway, the jacket was loud enough to prompt Mounted ts2.jpgMemories president Mitch Adelstein to ask if I had won the Masters, but it also elicited a wave from another friend, autograph expert/dealer Phil Marks from New Jersey.

   “Who’s the second-most-famous Irishman in Chicago,” he asked. I was pretty sure I wasn’t it. “Charlie Comiskey,” Marks said, and he proceeded to produce a great pile of artifacts, including photographs and postcards, from the Hall of Famer’s estate.

   He had items from a 1907 spring training trip by the White Sox to Mexico City, a number of stunning Indian postcards from Comiskey’s travels out west, and even PC’s from the 1924 World Tour. And the whole time I was talking to Phil about the Comiskey cards (listening, really), he never once mentioned the price of anything. Not that he doesn’t sell stuff, just that he has that estimable Halper-like quality of being so genuinely interested in his own material that the monetary aspect isn’t the overriding focus.

   I was also personally interested in four or five images from Comiskey’s summer home in Eagle River, Wis., the place where he died in 1930. My grandmother had owned a “cottage” in nearby Three Lakes, Wis., where we vacationed nearly every year until 1960 or so, and my cousins still own the summer home now, though calling it a cottage would be akin to calling an aircraft carrier a boat. It’s one of the most beautiful areas in the state, if a bit forbidding in the winter, unless you’re a snowmobiler or skier.

   And on the subject of that neon-green sport coat, I wanted to point out that I had actually been given the jacket the night before from my mother. My father, who died 11 years ago, was as natty a dresser as I am, uh, less than fashionable. I had stopped to see my mother in Stoughton, Wis., en route to Chicago for the show, and the only remarkable thing about her giving me his boisterous green jacket was the mystery of why she had waited more than a decade to do it.

                                                             * * * * *

   Fathers and sons; that’s big-time stuff. It’s still fun when old-time collectors remember my dad from the early 1980s and the days of O’Connell & Son Ink. Lots of people still recall that quirky little outfit we started in 1982, though not that many actually remember meeting my dad, except for a few dealers in Indiana who met him when we first started selling the Baseball Greats set in 1983.

   Around that time I was the director of public relations for the Empire State Games in New York, the prototype of virtually every state-sponsored “State Games” in the country, and I still have a staff jacket from that time, now all of 25 years old. I was wearing the jacket the other day when it occurred to me that it was a bit on the snug side.

   As I sort of wondered why I hadn’t sent it to Goodwill or otherwise retired it, it reminded of a remembrance of my father when I was a kid and I was always wondering why in casual situations on Saturdays (like Connie Mack, he always wore a suit and tie to work), mostly, he would wear things that often seemed to be too small. And with the green jacket fresh in my mind, I suddenly realized that now I was doing the same kind of thing. We attach a lot of sentimental power to some garments, a power that keeps them in the closet long past the point when traditional notions of utility and/or style might have relegated them to the dumpster.

   Keeping my Navy uniforms would be an obvious one, but I’ve still got a custom-made shirt from the Philippines, circa 1969. It’s the only custom-made shirt I’ve ever owned, and unlike my Navy dress blues or dress whites, I am pretty sure I can still fit into it.

   At age 56, finding more evidence that I either already am or am continuing to become my father is hardly stunning, but it’s comforting in a spiritual sense. Heck, I’ve got his driver’s license and other such ephemera since his passing, and I could easily use it in some official capacity, if needed, since we have the same name. And for those youngsters who think this is a lot of maudlin claptrap, I can only remind you that you, too, are becoming your father. It's just a matter of time.

* * * * *

   Barry Bonds, he of considerable fame in his own right but also the son of a famous father, is nowhere to be found in the first couple of Topps sets this year, after a two-year run as an exclusive with the iconic card company.

   I gotta admit I might not have noticed this, except that I took a lot of interest in the 2007 Heritage issue which came out a couple of weeks ago. As readers of my column in Sports Collectors Digest probably know, I am a big fan of these Heritage issues, so it’s a lot of fun when we open up the sample boxes that we receive here. I am also a fan of the idea of intermittent reinforcement, a notion that collides with the card companies’ modern emphasis on creating contrived scarcity.

   There was something to be said about the way they did it in the old days, but of course, that relied to a great deal on the idea of printing cards in six or seven series every summer. If you opened packs of 1959 Topps, you would get (in theory, anyway) as many Mickey Mantles as you would Coot Veals. There was/is a good deal of power to the intermittent reinforcement concept; I don’t know if B.F. Skinner had baseball cards in mind with his revolutionary study in 1957 (is it just coincidence that this was the first year of the standard, 21/2-by-31/2-inch Topps card?), but I am convinced the application is completely relevant for collectors.

   Being the online whiz that I am (facetious), I noted somewhere online that somebody likened the underlying principles of IR to the often seemingly addictive quality of e-mails and slot machines. I’ll confess to a substantial hankering for the latter; with the former, I have a bit more of a conflicted relationship.

   I guess there’s irony in Barry Bonds’ absence from a baseball card issue prompting all this fuss and investigation, but he is the biggest star in the game, if not the most popular player in the game. In the spirit of this blogging business, I would note that Bonds has a good relationship with Topps, based on my understanding of the two years when he was exclusive with the company, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Topps eventually brought him back into the fold. I’ve never heard any rumblings to suggest that “His Barryness” might be inclined to exercise his egalitarian side and sign with the MLBPA; turns out his report card says he doesn’t play well with others.

   One last thing in the Topps department: As I waddle around cyberspace both in my official capacity as editor of SCD and in preparation for this blogging venture, I wound up on a message board on the Collectors Universe website. There I found some of the original photos that were used on vintage Topps cards, including Willie Mays from 1952 Topps (and the image used for the painting in 1953), the background of several 1956 Topps cards, including Mantle, Nellie Fox and Monte Irvin, and a couple of others. It’s the kind of stuff I love, so here’s the link, as they say: CU Forum




3/26/2007 3:15:56 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [16]
 Friday, March 23, 2007
Test #2
Posted by T.S.

This is a test.  This is a test hyperlink.



3/23/2007 2:55:42 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [6]