1996 SPX Basketball

[mc1]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

Well, it was always jus bizarre that it only included stats up through '95-96 in a 1997 release. Not only was that abnormal, it's not anything that I think any designer would ever think was a good thing - leaving out the most relevant stats but including a bunch of less relevant years. A 1997 standard release card should either include '96-97 stats, or not have any stats at all.

It always felt like a collection of '96-97 cards that - for whatever reason - then got labeled as a "1997 set" instead.

Well, they talked about the 1997 All-Star weekend and game on the back of Kobe and Jordans cards. They could have included partial season stats but choose not to. Garnetts card from 1996 talks about stats after the All-Star game too. They dont list any stats for any year so its a bit different.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

The idea that there was a Duncan rookie craze then is so strange to me given that

a) he was even better than expected
b) collectors have never seemed to care one bit about him
c) it had already been established that small players seemed to be more popular than bigs

Not saying you're wrong here - I had left the Hobby by 1997-98, so I don't know and I can see how a company might choose to do this - but the idea that you don't go all in for Iverson but do for Duncan just seems like bad business. (Saying this as someone who would rank Duncan way ahead of Iverson as a player to be clear.)

I feel like part of what had to be going on was that the popularity of the 1996 draft class in the hobby during '97-98 (led by Chrome Kobe) made it clear that it was a mistake to release any product without any RCs simply because of timing & labeling.

The chrome refractor Kobe rookie was selling for about $1000 when 1997-98 topps chrome was released and the Duncan was going for $300 on day one. Keith Van Horn was about $125 and Iverson about $500. Duncan was literally big hobby wise. Kobe didn't start off very strong at the beginning because no one knew what to expect. Duncan was a consensus number one pick and no-brainer.

You make a good point, starting in 1997-98, upper deck made sure they didn't leave any rookies out of any products. The 1996 spx release was based more on the premium quality of the product rather than player selection. In hindsight, upper deck could have waited a few more months and included rookies, but, oh well, the Jordan auto and "holoview technology" that they were pushing at the time was enough to sell products for them on it's own.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by mc1

Well, they talked about the 1997 All-Star weekend and game on the back of Kobe and Jordans cards. They could have included partial season stats but choose not to. Garnetts card from 1996 talks about stats after the All-Star game too. They dont list any stats for any year so its a bit different.

Have there been products released that feature partial season stats?

I feel like I have seen it before but can't put my finger on it. Maybe something like early EX? Or maybe it hasn't been done.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Have there been products released that feature partial season stats?

I feel like I have seen it before but can't put my finger on it. Maybe something like early EX? Or maybe it hasn't been done.

I seem to remember a release or two from the same time period with partial season stats. Maybe Im misremembering.

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by mc1

Well, they talked about the 1997 All-Star weekend and game on the back of Kobe and Jordans cards. They could have included partial season stats but choose not to. Garnetts card from 1996 talks about stats after the All-Star game too. They dont list any stats for any year so its a bit different.

I mean, the 1997 all-star game happens mid '96-97 season.
And why don't they have complete stats for '96-97 yet? Because it's being made mid-season.
So when did the back of these cards get fleshed out? During the '96-97 season.

Given that I'm pretty sure there were other produced during the '96-97 season - rather than before - what's the difference between SPx and those other products?

Now people have already talked about release date and manufacturer intention, so I'm not disputing those things, but in terms of the cards themselves, they really seem like cards you'd just assume were '96-97 going only by a) which draft class is the latest included in it, and b) the stats they show in back.

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

The chrome refractor Kobe rookie was selling for about $1000 when 1997-98 topps chrome was released and the Duncan was going for $300 on day one. Keith Van Horn was about $125 and Iverson about $500. Duncan was literally big hobby wise. Kobe didn't start off very strong at the beginning because no one knew what to expect. Duncan was a consensus number one pick and no-brainer.

You make a good point, starting in 1997-98, upper deck made sure they didn't leave any rookies out of any products. The 1996 spx release was based more on the premium quality of the product rather than player selection. In hindsight, upper deck could have waited a few more months and included rookies, but, oh well, the Jordan auto and "holoview technology" that they were pushing at the time was enough to sell products for them on it's own.

A appreciate your insights. One thing though:

1996 SPx had 1995-96 rookies, and 1997 SPx had 1996-97 rookies - and not just rookies that realistically were seen as breaking through as something like a Top 50 player (given that the set only had 50 cards).

I'll put out there my fave Steve Nash. Love the dude and have the SPx card, but he was a back-up at that time. No way he's included in that set for any reason other than being a rookie.

Consider also that with draft picks that a) weren't expected to become stars, and b) are bench players without a path to stardom, typically see the amount of cards they have drop from rookie to sophomore season.

There are more '97-98 cards of Kobe than '96-97.
There are less '97-98 cards of Nash than '96-97.

Why? Because Kobe had gotten the basketball world (and hobby) excited, and Nash hadn't.

This then to say that it's really weird for a card listed with '97-98 would have only 50 cards but include Nash. I don't think you'll find another mainstream card for a set that small that has Nash - and that includes the official '97-98 release.

So why did 1997 SPx include him? I would say purely out of the habit of including more rookies than is justified simply based on prominence in the league, which means the designers were thinking like this was a '96-97 set.

Upper Deck clearly chose to actually package the release as 1997, but there are literally things here that are only optimal in design when viewed from a '96-97 release perspective.

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Have there been products released that feature partial season stats?

I feel like I have seen it before but can't put my finger on it. Maybe something like early EX? Or maybe it hasn't been done.

I'm not saying it's never happened, but I don't know what the point would be.

Why include information that will be out of date by the time people get the card?

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

A appreciate your insights. One thing though:

1996 SPx had 1995-96 rookies, and 1997 SPx had 1996-97 rookies - and not just rookies that realistically were seen as breaking through as something like a Top 50 player (given that the set only had 50 cards).

I'll put out there my fave Steve Nash. Love the dude and have the SPx card, but he was a back-up at that time. No way he's included in that set for any reason other than being a rookie.

Consider also that with draft picks that a) weren't expected to become stars, and b) are bench players without a path to stardom, typically see the amount of cards they have drop from rookie to sophomore season.

There are more '97-98 cards of Kobe than '96-97.
There are less '97-98 cards of Nash than '96-97.

Why? Because Kobe had gotten the basketball world (and hobby) excited, and Nash hadn't.

This then to say that it's really weird for a card listed with '97-98 would have only 50 cards but include Nash. I don't think you'll find another mainstream card for a set that small that has Nash - and that includes the official '97-98 release.

So why did 1997 SPx include him? I would say purely out of the habit of including more rookies than is justified simply based on prominence in the league, which means the designers were thinking like this was a '96-97 set.

Upper Deck clearly chose to actually package the release as 1997, but there are literally things here that are only optimal in design when viewed from a '96-97 release perspective.

It could be a variety of plausible reasons that Nash was in 1997 spx, not related to how hyped he may have been. Only the set designers would know the answer to that.

Regardless, they made the decision to release it in 1997 and label their packs that way, and thus, it's a second year card of those rookies from 1996-97.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

It could be a variety of plausible reasons that Nash was in 1997 spx, not related to how hyped he may have been. Only the set designers would know the answer to that.

Regardless, they made the decision to release it in 1997 and label their packs that way, and thus, it's a second year card of those rookies from 1996-97.

Not just in 1997, but after Finals. Im sure it was released late June or early July.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by mc1

Not just in 1997, but after Finals. Im sure it was released late June or early July.

Yeah, it was WAY past the final releases for 1996-97 basketball products. I don't believe any 1997-98 products had been released yet, either.

It was just a weird in between release.

[Chris P]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

Yeah, it was WAY past the final releases for 1996-97 basketball products. I don't believe any 1997-98 products had been released yet, either.

It was just a weird in between release.

1998 UD Hardcourt is another set like this

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Chris P

1998 UD Hardcourt is another set like this

Good call!

[Tallboy]

So I suppose I'll put this forward that came to mind from something someone else said:

While I don't agree that SPx is missing rookies in their player section, for reasons specified above, I do think it likely that there's something similar going on in how Upper Deck presented SPx and Topps originally presented Finest.

In both cases, the company were looking to present a new standard for super-premium, and in both cases they ended up as releases that didn't have official RCs.

And in both cases, the lack of official RCs ended up damaging the brand. Almost the very thing that let SPx's mother brand SP emerge as the preeminent baseball RC of the time (Finest lacking rookies), likely then kept the SPx from surpassing SP.

From there it's a question of why the companies chose this brand sabotage.

In the case of Finest, I'd say it was pretty clear: Rookies aren't actually all that good, so calling them "finest" isn't accurate. The brand name, in other words, initially referred to something literal. The player selection then wasn't missing rookies as an oversight, it was part of the concept.

But of course, it didn't last for that long like that. Eventually, Finest got RCs, and my guess is that the lack of RCs early on was seen as a blunder to avoid going forward.

Which is where things get so interesting, because I'd think that Upper Deck would see the danger of lacking RCs in a year where an iconic superstar emerges - which could happen in any year, and of course, did here.

So why would you knowingly sabotage the launch of your new top-level premium brand that demonstrates your technical superiority that you're so proud of?

Honestly, as I said above, I had always assumed that this was just arm-twisting politics within the industry, but the fact that they labeled the "1997" themselves changes things given that this was the second year of this happening.

I feel like there must have been so significant disagreements within Upper Deck about what SPx would do to SP, and that if this was a strategy that was decided upon, there were people who thought it was a damaging unforced error.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by Tallboy

So I suppose I'll put this forward that came to mind from something someone else said:

While I don't agree that SPx is missing rookies in their player section, for reasons specified above, I do think it likely that there's something similar going on in how Upper Deck presented SPx and Topps originally presented Finest.

In both cases, the company were looking to present a new standard for super-premium, and in both cases they ended up as releases that didn't have official RCs.

And in both cases, the lack of official RCs ended up damaging the brand. Almost the very thing that let SPx's mother brand SP emerge as the preeminent baseball RC of the time (Finest lacking rookies), likely then kept the SPx from surpassing SP.

From there it's a question of why the companies chose this brand sabotage.

In the case of Finest, I'd say it was pretty clear: Rookies aren't actually all that good, so calling them "finest" isn't accurate. The brand name, in other words, initially referred to something literal. The player selection then wasn't missing rookies as an oversight, it was part of the concept.

But of course, it didn't last for that long like that. Eventually, Finest got RCs, and my guess is that the lack of RCs early on was seen as a blunder to avoid going forward.

Which is where things get so interesting, because I'd think that Upper Deck would see the danger of lacking RCs in a year where an iconic superstar emerges - which could happen in any year, and of course, did here.

So why would you knowingly sabotage the launch of your new top-level premium brand that demonstrates your technical superiority that you're so proud of?

Honestly, as I said above, I had always assumed that this was just arm-twisting politics within the industry, but the fact that they labeled the "1997" themselves changes things given that this was the second year of this happening.

I feel like there must have been so significant disagreements within Upper Deck about what SPx would do to SP, and that if this was a strategy that was decided upon, there were people who thought it was a damaging unforced error.

Don't forget that the lack of rookies in 1996 spx was made up for by the presence of Jordan and Penny autographs.