Amado Samuel’s card from 1962 was suggested by Scott Veatch. Samuel was an infielder for three years in the early 60s for the Milwaukee Braves.
This 1962 card represents Samuel’s rookie year for the Braves. He actually got in over 200 at-bats that season and hit three homers with a .206 batting average. Though he had a .248 OBP, he led off for the team in 17 games.
Despite his overall stats, Amado Samuel made things interesting in the clutch. With two outs and runners in scoring position, he batted .348. Eleven of his 20 rbis came in that situation.
| Split | G | GS | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | BB | SO | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1962 Totals | 76 | 55 | 224 | 209 | 16 | 43 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 12 | 54 | .206 | .248 | .297 |
Aside from being rated Fielding Three at three positions, Samuel’s hitting card isn’t much to look at. He has 0-0-7 but not much after that.
What’s interesting though is that Samuel’s ‘62 card is another example of APBA putting off hit numbers till the 15 and 25 at the expense of 55. As you can see, he has a 55-13 but a 15-8 and a 25-9. This isn’t the first card I’ve seen with a better number at the speed numbers (11 and 10 notwithstanding) than the “better” roll of 55. Despite Samuel not getting any speed numbers, he still received better hit numbers at 15 and 25.
What’s even more mind boggling is his 62-8. The more I look at this card, the more I think I should have featured it on Wednesday.
Ugly numbers: 55-13, 31-13, 51-39
If you’re looking for the 33 and 34, they are there. APBA played a bit of musical chairs with the numbers in 1962. For the 1962 season set, the 12 was at 36, the traditional home of the 33. The 33 moved to 43 which is where 29 normally resides. In turn, Samuel’s 29 went to 56 which is where the 34 would be. Finally, the 34 went to 63. Samuel did not receive a second 31 so the number-swapping stopped there.
Could the 62-8 and 55-13 be mistakes as it seems they are reversed from normal cards?
Definitely more of a Wednesday card. I agree w/ Ted – I think the 62-8 was a mistake, and 55 and 62 might have been reversed. Then again, there’s a lot of strangeness in this card – gotta look up what normal ’62 cards looked like.
Checking the Zack book… looks like the results at 36-12, 56-29, 43-33, 63-34 and 23-31 (or 30 or 32) were standard in this set. But under corrections, he lists “Amado Samuel has the dice results for 15, 35, and 55 located at 22, 42 and 62 and vice versa.”
Looks to me like if you swapped the line beginning with 22 with the line beginning at 15, the card would be fine.
That would put the 8’s at 22 and 55, where they oughtta be. It would also put the 9 at 15, which is more appropriate (and normal).
Probably a typesetter’s or transcriber’s error.
Cool stuff.
Interesting that he was a clutch hitter though despite those awful overall numbers.
As for the card talk I wish I understood all that you are talking off and if someone could share what they think the card should look like I would be interested to see that.