Zvon

Thanks for the mention. The FiveThirtyEight piece is excellent. [fimg=400:1gpqtq8y]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6y5XRE1izGA/VyAXsxGi19I/AAAAAAAAm1g/Amv24CLmp08SCedYjNdJ1y5ebxfKennRwCCo/s1440/BUDGET.png[/fimg:1gpqtq8y]

5-3. Niiiiiice.

Chad Ochoseis wrote: In DC, Bryce Harper is up with 2 out in the 9th, runner on 1st, Phightin's winning 4-3. I'm watching.

Great comeback. Cespedes is like steroids on steroids. I move this game be remembered as The Roy Scheider Game.

With the umps we have these days I wouldn't just walk away like that Wilmer.

Oh maaaaaan, Conforto is such a pure hitter. This guy is going to be so much fun to watch!

Flores makes a great diving stop and they give him an error. wtf? Reed closes the 8th! Niiiiiice.

Captain Wright PULLS one over third, Mets lead, 4-3. Gah, Dave picked off.

GrandTRIboom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wow!

Franco just drove in the go ahead run in Philly. Crushed a drive to center but took a bad spill rounding first and is hurt. Phils lead Nats by a run in the 7th, 4-3.

I'm gonna say an encouraging at bat by Wright. Didn't K, moved Grandy to third. Conforto pops out. Long ball please Mr Walker.

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice! Walker w/a great play to start the DP. Losing 3-0. Come on, lets get something going. Gah! Nats tied the Phils, 3-3.

Well yea, if you keep running around we are gonna hit you in the elbows! Deal w/it!

Votto sac fly makes it 1-0 visitors.

Both of those hits...COMEON! OOO, Holt gives himself up for no reason. Yay!

I understand the reasoning, kind of in emergency mode until d' & Cess get back. Conforto looks like he'll just take this is stride. Personally, I wouldn't mess with him. I'd move Lags to lead off and drop Grandy to 4th.

I didn't even mention the '71Topps. [fimg=300:3mt7xe72]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-15HtF1tFfY8/UrZsDBegeOI/AAAAAAAAKYY/sAtF7gHjf68Mk0iVEEbeMtckJLnN6KlCACCo/s640/%2524_fes3.JPG[/fimg:3mt7xe72] The fact that 71 was in color and our Mets WS cards in '70 were not was a very traumatic experience for me. It's why I started that blog. If Maz was a Met I'd do it in a second. If not he goes to the back of the line. I am currently colorizing a Mantle pic with Koufax in the background from the 1964 WS. I'm not doing it for a card, it's just a classic photo. I probably will make a WS card from that someday.

[fimg=555]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1537/26040717884_34f30c1bc0_o.jpg[/fimg] You could see how Topps was determined to crop out the faces of those fans following Mazeroski to home plate while, obviously, keeping Maz himself in the shot. With today's tools, you could take out the fans in about a minute - cleanly - and then you'd have a shot that's framed or cropped so that the top border isn't right on the top of the head of Mazeroski. As the focal point of that shot, Maz's whole body should've been in that crop, including his right arm, extended in the air. OE: The more I stare at the Maz b&w, the more I believe that Maz's right arm is the key element in the pic. They could have done that in those days too. It would have taken a few more steps in the process. You should make a version of that, how it should be. Cause, yes, it's a travesty that Maz was so cropped. What a wonderful photo ruined. Shame on Topps.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: The original '67 WS cards resembled a TV set (as did next year's WS cards). I wonder why Topps used B&W images for its '67 WS cards. I'm pretty sure that by '67, every prime time network TV show was in color. Maybe it was because more than half of the viewing public still didn't own color TV sets? Who knows? Maybe there was no reason at all. Maybe Topps saved a little bit of money on the production side by using B&W images instead of color? Maybe it was because the '66 WS itself aired in B&W? Probably all of the above. Probably. Maybe. Those "color" WS cards you posted one above, as you probably know, are not from color photogrpahs, but from b&w's that were hand color painted. Hand painted because there was no Photoshop, or PC's 50-60 years ago. I know that in the late 1940's, most color baseball cards were hand painted from b&w, usually team issued, photos. That's because in the late '40's, it was cheaper to hand paint the cards than to produce cards from color photographs. I wonder if that was still the case 15-20 years later. I was born in the wrong era. I would have manually colorized everything! I think if Topps used in-house employees from what they termed an art department it would cost 'em next to nothing. I believe the '63s are real color pics. I own two of those.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: The original '67 WS cards resembled a TV set (as did next year's WS cards). I wonder why Topps used B&W images for its '67 WS cards. I'm pretty sure that by '67, every prime time network TV show was in color. Maybe it was because more than half of the viewing public still didn't own color TV sets? Who knows? Maybe there was no reason at all. Maybe Topps saved a little bit of money on the production side by using B&W images instead of color? Maybe it was because the '66 WS itself aired in B&W? Probably all of the above. Probably. Maybe. Those "color" WS cards you posted one above, as you probably know, are not from color photogrpahs, but from b&w's that were hand color painted. Hand painted because there was no Photoshop, or PC's 50-60 years ago. I know that in the late 1940's, most color baseball cards were hand painted from b&w, usually team issued, photos. That's because in the late '40's, it was cheaper to hand paint the cards than to produce cards from color photographs. I wonder if that was still the case 15-20 years later. I was born in the wrong era. I would have manually colorized everything! I think if Topps used in-house employees from what they termed an art department it would cost 'em next to nothing. I believe the '63s are real color pics. I own two of those.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The original '67 WS cards resembled a TV set (as did next year's WS cards). I wonder why Topps used B&W images for its '67 WS cards. I'm pretty sure that by '67, every prime time network TV show was in color. Maybe it was because more than half of the viewing public still didn't own color TV sets? Who knows? Maybe there was no reason at all. Maybe Topps saved a little bit of money on the production side by using B&W images instead of color? Maybe it was because the '66 WS itself aired in B&W? Probably all of the above.

SteveJRogers wrote: Quick research, looks like Topps used B&W photos for postseason cards through 1971. 1972 is the first year featuring color photos for postseason coverage cards. [fimg=300]http://caimages.collectors.com/psaimages/21950/22679941/1963%20Topps%20144%20World%20Series%20Game%203%20Obverse.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=300]http://caimages.collectors.com/psaimages/21950/19799462/1965%20Topps%20134%20World%20Series%20Game%203%20Obverse.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=300]http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/wp-content/uploads/Mazeroski.jpg?65f8cc[/fimg]

seawolf17 wrote: The colored photos are short-printed parallels. This whole things getting a bit silly now, isn't it? I'd like these but fuck them for making them limited. I got the Matzo Ball WackyPcard. lol. And the NY Meats one is also a 6 card puzzle (on backs). Gah! I love card back puzzles. Don't know if there's a puzzle of the Matza Balls one. These blisters were $9.99 with 4 packs and a mini 2 card pack. Come on Topps--5 packs a box please, u conniving bastids. Still worth it and I'll grab another box or 2 of these and try to get the puzzle. These days it's a tuff gig, the Wacky Packs. I imagine the politically correct atmosphere makes it a bit more difficult to make fun of stuff. I'm not finding them as much funny as just cute. But there are exceptions. My favorite (non-Mets) so far. [fimg=300]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ADN-1gb3ygE/Vx6auf4HBpI/AAAAAAAAm04/tW3JnbVrVp4vllvxevM_mwZiSscgUgBmgCCo/s640/BuccoEyePatch.png[/fimg] "I pitch therefore eye-patch!" lmao. And the disclaimer, classic.

Zvon wrote: 8 in April. From 2nd base. Amazin'. Last Met to do this? Jeff Kent. Not bad company.