How come 1989 Fleer does NOT start with the World Champs like in previous years?

Estil

Okay, those of you familiar with 1980s baseball card sets knows that unlike Donruss/Topps that did mostly random numbering for their card sets (though Topps did usually give stars xx0 numbers and big superstars x00 numbers), Fleer did their numbering system in alphabetical order by teams. Now, from 1991-onwards, they did the teams in alphabetical order, rotating each year to start with AL or NL teams. But from 1981-90, they did the sets based on how well the teams did the previous year. For 1981-88, 1990, they start with the defending World Champs, then the other League champ, then the other two division champs, and then the other teams in decending order by won/loss record (which of course means the team that comes right before the subsets were the worst the previous season).

But for 1989, they don't do that. They have the Dodgers THIRD, with the Athletics and Mets first and second instead. Why?

MikeyLikesIt

I thought it was based on W/L record?

Estil

Well, I have all those sets and except for 1989, they always start with the previous World Champs, then the other league champ, then the other two division champs. Or perhaps the 1988 Dodgers were the only upset of the 80s?

brian26

Wow, you learn something new everyday. I never noticed this until you guys mentioned it.

Estil

<< <i>Wow, you learn something new everyday. I never noticed this until you guys mentioned it. >>



I wonder if maybe we should do a thread about little or not-so-widely known baseball card trivia like this?

TraderShea

Nah they couldn’t have gone on W/L record, the 88 set would see the Twins 9th not 1st if that was the case but with Puckett being card #19 I imagine they are the first team. Maybe the designers just didnt like the Dodgers

Estil

<< <i>Nah they couldn’t have gone on W/L record, the 88 set would see the Twins 9th not 1st if that was the case but with Puckett being card #19 I imagine they are the first team. Maybe the designers just didnt like the Dodgers >>



No, that was right starting the Twins in 1988; they were the defending (1987) champs. Neat final card of Steve Carlton, eh?

TraderShea

<< <i>

<< <i>Nah they couldn’t have gone on W/L record, the 88 set would see the Twins 9th not 1st if that was the case but with Puckett being card #19 I imagine they are the first team. Maybe the designers just didnt like the Dodgers >>


No, that was right starting the Twins in 1988; they were the defending (1987) champs. Neat final card of Steve Carlton, eh? >>



Yeah, I was replying to "MikeyLikesIt" who questioned if the sets just went off W/L records, I was using the 88 set to show they hadnt in the past ~ guess I should have used a quote; sorry

Oh and do you like the 88 Fleer Carlton? He has that classic "I'm an old man just sitting around doing nothing, I dont even know why I'm here" look to him.

Estil

I just noticed that the 1991 Fleer set also starts with the Athletics (defending AL champs) and also has the defending World Series champs (Reds) as the third set again! The Pirates are the second team for that year (defending NL East champs). Maybe Fleer back then had a pro-Athletics bias? 1992 is when they discontinue arranging the teams by record.

colebear

I remember when these set came out I noticed it. I came to the conclusion that they were set up as predictions, because of the print time of a month and a half did not seem long enough. Maybe they quit doing it because they could never get it right!!!