Eric sent in a good question today which got me thinking. I figured I would share my thoughts with the class.
Hello,
I was looking in Street & Smith BB Yearbook 1973 that had APBA ad featuring Johnny Bench (single column).Last year, I purchased the 1972 season and noticed that Johnny Bench has double columns.
Is that typical for cards to go from single columns to double columns and vice-versa?
Respectfully
Eric
That is a good question and very timely as we’re seeing more and more cards from the past especially on APBA GO.
This is the ad that Eric is referring.
Love ’em or hate ’em, one of the advantages of double column cards is that they give greater accuracy of distribution of doubles, triples and homers for the player’s statistics. More importantly, it allows for granular control of power numbers since APBA puts 7s, 8s and 11s (which are singles) in the second column.
Let’s use Eric’s example of 1972 Johnny Bench.
| Split | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | BB | SO | BA | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1972 Totals | 147 | 653 | 538 | 87 | 145 | 22 | 2 | 40 | 125 | 6 | 100 | 84 | .270 | .379 | .541 |
Looking at his stats, he has an average of 3.63 extra base hits per 36 plate appearances. In the old days of APBA, the card makers made that decision to give him four solid power numbers, 1-1-5-6.
Original 1972 Bench card
But let’s face it, Bench’s XBH/36 PA didn’t quite reach 4.0. At 3.63, the allocation of 1-1-5-6 was a bit much. As much as most of us love Bench, giving him that extra boost isn’t logical. Using double columns, the card makers can be a little more granular in how the hits are distributed.
Also, I think the player’s stature plays a role in the decision. There is no doubt that single column cards are more popular among many APBA fans especially when it comes to true sluggers. Who doesn’t like rolling a 33-5 with a runner on first?! I think I heard a conversation recently on either Double Take or This Week in APBA that certain players like Mickey Mantle or Harmon Killebrew would not look right with double columns. Honestly, Johnny Bench falls in that category for me.
So is APBA moving towards a double column format for all cards? I don’t think so. If the formula fits and the XBH/36 PA is near a whole number, they will stick to a single column format. I will note that I have never seen a player go back to the single column format once they have gotten double columns.
Current 1972 Bench card
One other advantage from a statistical point of view, is using 11s in the second column. Doing that, the card makers can replicate Bench’s six steals. While Bench’s 15-10 sure is nice in his original card, it slightly influences his batting average for the better. Having the 11s in the second column, does not.
Finally, I can’t let this slide. The card makers of Bench’s re-issue of his 1972 card must not have been Reds fans. I am puzzled by the lack of 1s in his second column which you can see on his APBA GO card above. He only has two second column 1s in addition to his two first column ones.
Bench had 40 homeruns in 653 plate appearances which works out to 2.27 homers per 36 plate appearances.The two 1s fulfill the 2.0 of that amount. I think Bench needs a few more second column 1s to make up the balance.
Thanks for the question, Eric. I hope it helps! Also, many thanks to Steve Stein for my use of Steve’s APBA Card Computer in writing this.
I cannot deny that the new cards are far more accurate but there’s something to be said about power hitters being single columns and regular hitters being double.
One of the best things about playing in the 70s was seeing those clutch double numbers come up knowing you had an extra base hit in the bag without having to make any extra rolls. That kind of stuff was for Griffey not Bench or Perez.
Watching a 22-6 come up with a runner on 3rd was a truly great feeling and you imagined a long drive down the left-field line tying the game in the bottom of the 9th!!
No I cannot deny the newer cards produce better season statistics, and I’m sure replayers are very happy for that, but I will be happy to stick with my old school OFAS cards hoping for that 33-5 with men on 1st and 3rd lol.
Second column 5… that’s unusual…
Card making, I leave to the Company. BBW lets me change when I imagine it will be more fun, such as when , after half a season, someone has way less than half their extra base hits. Elevens are not steals in the computer. I can change them to other things, particularly in second columns. Played 1957 with original , all single column, cards. Even misread the 3b- S on one card as a 3b-5. It was supposed to be a three. Oops . Dodgers and White Sox won the pennant. Amazing, and fun. Double, or single columns, I am grateful for APBA.
Thats a great article. I recently noticed playing APBA GO that John Tudor’s 1985 card went from ‘A” to ‘A&C’ on APBA GO.
Either is fine with me. They should keep doing whatever way makes the particular card more accurate. What’s more important to me is that they never go back to cards without stats. Don’t understand why some prefer those. For me cards without stats are worthless and belong in the nearest fireplace with the flame burning.
I am good either way but I am easily aggravated at a 66-0. I favor the 66-1 Goodbye!
I agree. I like 11-1 in addition to 66-1.
I am under the impression 11 to 66 have an equal chance.
My math & percentage skills are on the decline.
If I am wrong, please let me know.
Eric L
Good article Tom. As far as game play either is fine. But, I’ve always loved the look of a single column power hitter. 1970-84 font style just like that 72 Bench is my favorite. I’d jump in Wayne’s fire to retrieve them.
Yes that font is A-1 for me as well. Those 70s cards were ‘crystal clear’ and so easy to read. I can see why a stats card would be handy for leagues trying to keep ABs in order etc, but give me crisp a 1-1-5-6 card and i’ll sit back knowing ive got 40-45 taters leaving the yard with no complaints at all lol.
In response to Wayne re. why some of the gamers prefer cards w/o stats; might be a nostalgia thing. I myself liked it but I am not going to rain on anyone’s parade.
I remember playing a few games (s-o-m, apba and sports illustrated BB) w/ my father in early 70’s. I hope i didn’t commit board game faux paus by mentioning other games. But, my dad said to me, He didn’t like re-rolling and playing all-star type teams. He liked the actual team from that season, probably around 1972.
Anyway, we all have our reasons.
Eric
Very good points Eric. Some of it is def nostalgia for sure…those 70s cards are simply the best. However I also simply dont like the crowded stat cards as they take my eyes away from the hit numbers which are now often double columns even for legit power hitters…which I def dont like lol. Yes, to each his own. That’s the beauty of this game.
I remember there being a very emphatic note on the old play result boards (I purchased the basic game in 1979) about a pitcher’s grade, regardless of what it was, not being able to change the result of any second-column hit. This seems to be lacking in the new play result booklet. Has anyone else noticed this? This could be confusing to someone who’s never played the game before. They may change a second-column single to an out, not knowing the rule. Maybe APBA feels this is common sense, but I feel they should print that double-column note somewhere in the play-result booklet, as they did on the old charts.
From page 3 of the 2013 Booklet under the Pitching & Defense section, the second paragraph: When you’re batting, stick to the play-result charts that apply to the opposing pitcher’s rating, except when there’s a 7, 8 or 11 result from the second of a player card. Then you use the Grade D Pitcher column no matter the pitcher’s actual grade.
I am guessing the 9 & 10 should also be included.