Quote:
Originally Posted by Bliggity
I also have a much greater appreciation for the teams and the set as a whole after having done my '79 set this way. You do start to see patterns and differences with the teams in ways that you'd never realize when sorting numerically.
I decided to do mine this way:
- Leader/Record/WS cards
- Teams, each organized by team/manager card, starting pitchers, then 2-9 position starters in order, then relief pitchers, then utility players, and then multi-player RCs. Baseball Reference makes all this information super easy to find.
- Teams start with WS winner from the previous year, followed by the league runner up (championship series loser), and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.
- Checklists in the middle to separate AL from NL (or vice-versa).
- WS runner-up, followed by the league runner up, and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.
It takes a lot more effort than numerical order, but it's a fun project. For those who haven't organized by team before, here's what it ends up looking like. I'm halfway through putting the '79s into binders, so here's everything through the checklists. I put them in 18-slot pages with a black insert so they really pop.
 |
That sounds like a lot of fun, Dan. And I understand what you mean by how it makes you notice things about the sets you wouldn't otherwise have noticed. I don't have the data in front of me, but I was doing this with my '53 Topps set this weekend. Some teams had an inordinate number of pitchers represented and few infielders and outfielders. Some had like three catchers pictured and fewer pitchers. Maybe the Topps/Bowman contract battle played into that. Maybe some guys just wouldn't sign, and maybe the companies felt some players just weren't worth the effort. Some teams were represented by coaches/managers, while others weren't. Like you said, it's more work, but I'm always looking for an excuse to play with my cards. Most of my cards are 50s, but I do have some 70s and 80s sets that I might take out and rearrange as you're describing. I like that a lot. You know how it goes when you're working on a set, it can get mundane and if you don't watch it, it's easy to fall into a rut of just checking off commons. Organizing them by team almost makes it feel like a subset or something. It provides a little more meaning and fun for me. To be honest, I was done with set building, but this thread got me to looking at commons and lesser stars I had left for dead. I feel energized again, and I'm excited about what's to come!