frankendodger sheet 12 (cards 100-108) - the hero number gets updated to avoid an exemption from the earlier rule...

i've updated this page since the original post ran.

here's sheet number 12 of my dodger frankenset - cards numbered 100-108:

and the back:

here's what the page originally looked like:

these cards are:

100. 2013 topps opening day matt kemp 1990 bowman hubie brooks
101. 2013 topps heritage don mattingly
102. 2008 upper deck derek lowe
103. 2003 upper deck mvp kazuhisa ishii
104. 1995 leaf ramón martinez
105. 1963 topps ron fairly
106. 1962 post willie davis
107. 1996 upper deck sp chan ho park
108. 1980 o-pee-chee dave goltz

the "no brainer" of the day:

i love me some o-pee-chee variations, and i really wanted that dave goltz card in the set.

about the cards:

so, it's matt kemp who makes the first repeat appearance in the frankenset at the hero number of 100.

as i mentioned in the "final thoughts" of this original post, i was a bit miffed that i had not used the hubie brooks bowman card at number 100 in order to maintain the diversity of the set.  so, i made the switch from kemp to brooks.  brooks is not really a hero number kind of guy, but i'll have other opportunities to line up big numbers with big players.

i wanted to have at least one card of every manager from alston on up, so the mattingly card fits in nicely here (over alston, actually).

lowe and ishii are convenient fillers, but i can't believe it's taken 12 pages to get to ramon martinez.  i learned about ron fairly early in my baseball following days due to the fact that he used to wear garvey's number, and he was an announcer for the angels on ktla (pretty sure) after he retired.  i like his colorful 1963 topps card, and it looks great in the set as its first representative.

for the second day in a row, there's a davis on the page.  willie shows up on his 1962 post card - the first blank back in the set i believe (it's tough to keep track).  willie doesn't seem to get a lot of hype, even though he is among the career leaders in so many los angeles dodger categories.  i suspect it has to do with the struggles he had following his retirement and his lack of continuous involvement with the team like some other former players.

chan ho park and dave goltz finish off the page.  chan ho never won more than 18 games in a season, while dave was a 21-game winner in 1977.  i know that wins are not the best measure of a pitcher, especially to compare across generations, but i would think that both pitchers disappointed dodger fans to some degree - park never really lived up to his potential, and goltz never got back to his best days.  still, i was pretty excited when goltz signed with the dodgers and caused that fantastic o-pee-chee card to be created.

cards that didn't make the cut:

part of the reason for kemp originally showing up again was the fact that most of the other options at #100 included koufax or snider or nomo or piazza - guys that have already been included in the set.  however, i could have used (and have still can, i suppose) a 1990 bowman hubie brooks card to maintain the diversity of the set.  if anyone cares to send me one, i might consider it.

other cards passed over include walter alston's 1964 topps card at #101,

chin-feng chen's 2001 topps heritage card, also at #101, 1995 topps stadium club paul konerko at #102, 1968 topps don sutton at #103, 1978 topps lee lacy at #104 (in fact, i could have used either a 1978 topps card (lacy), a 1979 topps card (johnny oates), a 1980 topps card (manny mota), or a 1981 topps card (terry forster) at #104 - supporting my theory about checklist perpetuation?), a 1960 topps larry sherry at #105, a 2000 topps stadium club devon white at #106,

a 1988 pacific zoilo versalles at #107, and a 2004 playoff absolute memorabilia rickey henderson at #108.

my favorite card on the page:

it's the goltz card.

final thoughts:

i am a little bit bothered by that hubie brooks omission.  i think i meant to use a different card from 1990 bowman elsewhere in the set (the dodgers are numbered sequentially in that set), but wound up not doing so, and then forgot that it was then available at #100.  this post may get updated at some point...

and so it has.